PRIMIS Global
*** SAMPLE Security Operations Management System (SOMS) - AUDIT REPORT ***

ABC Security Group

Audit Reference: PG-ABC-2025-04-01 Auditing Organization: Primis Global Inc. Lead Auditor: David Koran Date(s) of Audit: April 21-25, 2025 Date of Report: April 27, 2025 Client Audited: ABC Security Group, Northeast Florida Operations

1. Executive Summary: This audit assessed key components of ABC Security Group's operational management processes related to performance evaluation, internal review, and continual improvement, referencing principles outlined in ISO 18788:2015. ABC Security Group, an established (14-year) regional provider specializing in unarmed security for gated communities and office parks, demonstrates operational stability and relevant staff training (including de-escalation, HOA procedures, First Aid). However, the audit identified significant opportunities for improvement and potential nonconformities regarding the systematic monitoring, measurement, analysis, and evaluation of its operational performance. Notably, the reliance on manual, paper-based incident reporting and subjective supervisor observations, coupled with the absence of defined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), a formal internal audit program, and structured management reviews, hinders data-driven decision-making, proactive improvement, and objective demonstration of effectiveness. These findings suggest that while day-to-day operations are managed, the current system lacks the robustness and data-centricity typically required by a formal SOMS like ISO 18788, potentially impacting efficiency, client value perception, and the effective management of strategic goals such as geographic expansion. Recommendations focus on implementing digital systems, defining KPIs, and formalizing review and audit processes.

2. Audit Scope: Review of ABC Security Group's processes related to:

  • Performance Monitoring, Measurement, Analysis, and Evaluation (aligned with ISO 18788 Clause 9.1)
  • Internal Audit program implementation (aligned with ISO 18788 Clause 9.2)
  • Management Review conduct (aligned with ISO 18788 Clause 9.3)
  • Continual Improvement activities (aligned with ISO 18788 Clause 10.3) The audit focused on current practices within the Northeast Florida operational context.

3. Audit Criteria:

  • Principles and requirements outlined in ISO 18788:2015 Clauses 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 10.2, 10.3.
  • ABC Security Group's described operational practices and documentation provided.
  • General principles of effective quality and security management systems (Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle).

4. Audit Methodology: The audit was conducted through interviews with Top Management (CEO, Operations Manager), Supervisors, and review of available documentation including sample paper incident reports, training outlines, scheduling system (WhenToWork interface), and insurance documentation. Direct observation of field operations was not within the scope of this specific audit.

5. Detailed Findings:

Finding Ref Clause Ref (ISO 18788) Area Audited Evidence / Observation Finding & Potential Implications Classification
5.1 9.1.1 (Monitoring & Measurement) Performance Monitoring Interviews confirmed reliance on supervisor field presence and subjective assessment of guard performance. No documented Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or performance dashboards were identified or presented during the audit. Finding: Lack of defined, measurable performance criteria prevents objective monitoring and trend analysis of SOMS performance and operational effectiveness as required by Clause 9.1.1. Implication: Difficulty demonstrating value/improvement to clients/management; potential for inconsistent service quality; hinders data-driven resource allocation. Opportunity for Improvement (OFI)
5.2 9.1.1 (Analysis & Evaluation) Data Analysis Examination of sample paper incident forms and activity logs confirmed manual data capture. Interviews confirmed manual filing and lack of digital aggregation or analysis tools. Finding: The paper-based system critically impedes the ability to analyze and evaluate performance data (required by 9.1.1) to identify trends, root causes, or the effectiveness of actions. Implication: Significant administrative burden; high risk of data loss/inaccuracy; missed opportunities for proactive risk mitigation; inefficient reporting. OFI
5.3 9.2 (Internal Audit) Internal Audit Management confirmed, and documentation review verified, that no formal, planned internal audit program exists to systematically evaluate the conformity and effectiveness of the SOMS. Finding: Absence of a systematic internal audit process represents a nonconformity with the requirement in Clause 9.2 to conduct planned internal audits. Implication: Lack of independent verification of compliance; potential for operational drift and undetected system weaknesses; inability to provide key input to management review. Minor Nonconformity (NC)
5.4 9.3 (Management Review) Management Review Management described informal operational discussions but review of records and interviews confirmed no formal, documented management reviews covering all inputs specified in Clause 9.3.2 (e.g., performance data, audit results, compliance status, risks) occur regularly. Finding: The lack of planned, documented management reviews assessing the SOMS based on defined inputs constitutes a nonconformity with Clause 9.3 requirements. Implication: Weakens strategic oversight, accountability for improvement, and documented evidence of top management commitment to the SOMS's suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness. Minor NC
5.5 10.3 (Continual Improvement), 10.2 (Nonconformity & Corrective Action) Continual Improvement Improvement process described as reactive, based on specific incidents or supervisor observations. No documented procedure for handling nonconformities (10.2) or systematically using data analysis (ref 5.2) to drive proactive improvement (10.3) was found. Finding: The current approach to improvement lacks systematic analysis and data-driven proactivity, limiting alignment with Clause 10.3. Absence of a formal nonconformity/corrective action process (Clause 10.2) hinders structured problem-solving. Implication: Improvement efforts may be ad-hoc; difficulty verifying effectiveness; potential for recurring issues. OFI
 

6. Positive Observations:

  • Targeted supplementary training (De-escalation, HOA Rules, First Aid) is provided, aligning well with operational needs for gated community and office park environments.
  • Appropriate, specialized liability insurance for security operations is in place, addressing a key industry risk.
  • A functional scheduling system (WhenToWork) supports efficient resource deployment for current operations.
  • Company longevity (14 years) indicates resilience and market experience.

7. Overall Audit Conclusion: ABC Security Group demonstrates operational capability within its chosen niche, supported by experienced leadership and relevant training initiatives. However, significant gaps exist in the formal structures required for effective performance evaluation, data analysis, internal verification (audits), and systematic, data-driven continual improvement as outlined in ISO 18788. The reliance on manual reporting and subjective assessments limits transparency, efficiency, and the ability to objectively demonstrate performance or manage growth effectively. Addressing the identified nonconformities and opportunities for improvement is essential for strengthening the management system and ensuring it can support the company's strategic objectives, particularly geographic expansion.

Recommendations Report (Appended to Audit Report PG-ABC-2025-04-01)

Date: April 27, 2025 Subject: Recommendations Based on SOMS Audit PG-ABC-2025-04-01 Prepared For: ABC Security Group Management Prepared By: David Koran, Lead Auditor, Primis Global Inc.

Introduction: These recommendations stem directly from the findings documented in SOMS Audit Report PG-ABC-2025-04-01. They are intended to assist ABC Security Group in addressing the identified nonconformities and opportunities for improvement, thereby enhancing the effectiveness and maturity of its Security Operations Management System (SOMS).

Recommendations:

  1. Recommendation #1: Implement Integrated Digital Security Operations Platform

    • Related Finding(s): 5.1, 5.2, 5.5
    • Justification: Essential for enabling objective performance monitoring, efficient data collection/analysis, real-time field visibility, improved client reporting, operational scalability, and reducing administrative overhead associated with paper records. This directly addresses limitations in meeting ISO 18788 Clause 9.1 requirements.
    • Suggested Actions:
      • Define clear functional requirements based on operational needs (guard tours, incident reporting, activity logs, GPS tracking, potentially parking management features given client base) and scalability for expansion.
      • Evaluate reputable industry software platforms, considering features, usability (guard mobile app), data security, reporting capabilities, client portal options, and integration potential (e.g., with WhenToWork if feasible).
      • Secure budget approval and develop a phased implementation plan including data setup, user training (guards, supervisors, admin, clients), and transition from paper forms.
      • Ensure system meets data privacy/security standards for handling client/resident information.
    • Priority: High. Suggested Timeline: Selection/Budgeting by Q3 2025; Implementation Q4 2025 - Q1 2026.

  2. Recommendation #2: Establish and Monitor Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

    • Related Finding(s): 5.1, 5.4, 5.5
    • Justification: To provide objective measures of SOMS performance and effectiveness, facilitate data-driven decision-making, track progress towards strategic goals, and provide quantitative input for management reviews (ISO 18788 Clause 9.1.1, 9.3.2).
    • Suggested Actions:
      • Form a small team (e.g., Ops Mgr, Supervisor rep, Compliance) to identify 3-5 SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) KPIs relevant to ABC's context (e.g., Client Satisfaction Score, Patrol Checkpoint Adherence Rate, Average Incident Response Time [for specific types], Guard Retention Rate, # of founded complaints per site).
      • Define data sources (requires Rec #1 for some) and calculation methods.
      • Establish baseline data and set realistic improvement targets aligned with company objectives.
      • Develop a simple dashboard or report format for tracking and communicating KPI results regularly.
    • Priority: High. Suggested Timeline: Define KPIs Q3 2025; Begin phased tracking Q4 2025 / Q1 2026.

  3. Recommendation #3: Implement Formal Internal Audit Program

    • Related Finding(s): 5.3
    • Justification: To meet the requirement of ISO 18788 Clause 9.2 and provide assurance that the SOMS is effectively implemented, maintained, and conforms to requirements. Essential for identifying system weaknesses proactively.
    • Suggested Actions:
      • Develop and document an Internal Audit procedure defining scope, frequency (e.g., annual cycle covering all key processes), methodology (checklists, interviews, record sampling), auditor competence requirements, reporting format, and corrective action follow-up.
      • Utilize a risk-based approach to prioritize audit areas.
      • Provide formal internal auditor training to designated personnel (e.g., Compliance Officer, potentially Supervisors on rotation).
      • Maintain records of audit plans, reports, findings, and corrective actions.
    • Priority: Medium. Suggested Timeline: Procedure Developed Q3 2025; Training Q4 2025; First Audit Cycle initiated Q1 2026.

  4. Recommendation #4: Institute Formal Management Review Process

    • Related Finding(s): 5.4
    • Justification: To meet the requirement of ISO 18788 Clause 9.3 for top management to periodically review the SOMS's suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness, ensuring strategic alignment and driving continual improvement.
    • Suggested Actions:
      • Document a Management Review procedure defining frequency (minimum annually, recommend semi-annually initially), required attendees, standard agenda covering all Clause 9.3.2 inputs (KPIs, audit results, feedback, risks, resources, etc.), and requirements for documented minutes including decisions and action items.
      • Ensure necessary input data (especially KPIs from Rec #2, Audit results from Rec #3) is prepared and distributed prior to meetings.
    • Priority: Medium. Suggested Timeline: Procedure Developed Q3 2025; First Formal Review (using available inputs) Q4 2025.

  5. Recommendation #5: Document and Implement Nonconformity & Corrective Action Process

    • Related Finding(s): 5.5
    • Justification: To meet the requirement of ISO 18788 Clause 10.2 for addressing nonconformities and implementing corrective actions to prevent recurrence, ensuring systematic problem-solving and contributing to continual improvement (Clause 10.3).
    • Suggested Actions:
      • Develop a simple procedure for identifying, documenting (e.g., Corrective Action Request form), evaluating, and addressing nonconformities (from audits, complaints, incidents).
      • Include steps for root cause analysis (for significant issues) and verifying the effectiveness of actions taken.
      • Integrate this process with incident reporting, audits, and management review.
    • Priority: Medium. Suggested Timeline: Procedure Developed and Implemented Q4 2025.

Disclaimer: This audit report and the appended recommendations are based on a fictional scenario and limited, hypothetical information provided for ABC Security Group. They are illustrative examples of audit findings and recommendations within a SOMS context. A real-world audit would involve more extensive evidence gathering and verification.

Main Menu
ISO 18788 Analysis
Search ISO 18788