In a post-recession economy, everyone is looking for ways to reduce spending. From grocery budgets to facilities budgets, costs have a sneaky way of creeping up. Innovative companies are looking for new and creative ways to reduce their overall budget, a recent addition to that list is reducing spend on their key systems by swapping or recycling cores. While this does indeed cut cost, sacrifices in the quality and integrity of your system will be made. To accurately determine if this strategy makes sense for your organization, it’s important to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of each.
Core Swapping
As a cost reduction measure, organizations swap cores between locations. They pay for the initial cores then only pay for any associated shipping and new key costs going forward. Often times, a vendor will charge a “management fee” and/or will charge more per core for the initial purchase in order to recoup the cost of “managing” the replacement.
In order for core swapping to work properly, clear procedures must exist and be consistently adhered to. When a location is rekeyed, the store will ship the cores and keys back to corporate or to the key system vendor. Once received, a key count will be performed, and any additional keys will be cut or ordered; this pack will then be shipped out. Depending on the procedures setup by corporate, the packet can be sent to various places. Some of the most common being:
- The next location that requests a rekey
- A DM or LPM who will distribute the packets as necessary
- A pre-determined store as directed by corporate who will keep the packet in the safe for the next rekey
This works well for organizations that have a set number of keys and cores per location. If the core count varies by location, inconsistencies in core counts will arise as some will be new and some old.
It is important to note that should you choose to use core swapping, you will forego records accuracy – there is no definitive way to know which location is using which system. As such, your vendor will rely on key stampings to know what setup each location is currently on. This poses a challenge for unrestricted systems where key copies can easily be made by local locksmiths as the stampings will be lost in this process.
Over time, the springs in the cores break down and will cause a host of issues ranging from sticking and bent keys, to complete core failure. This wear and tear poses another downside to the savings involved with core swapping – service costs will begin to rise as the cores age.
Core Recycling
Like core swapping, the customer pays for the initial expense of the cores, but will then pay only for any associated shipping, re-pinning, and key charges.
When a location is rekeyed, the cores are either shipped back to corporate who will then ship the cores back to the vendor, or the cores are shipped directly to the vendor. The vendor will then dump the pins and re-pin each core for future core orders and rekey requests.
Unlike core swapping, records accuracy is not forgone. Since your vendor is managing the entire process from start to finish, they will be able to accurately manage where each core is installed. However, similar to core swapping, higher service costs due to increased wear and tear on the cores will eventually ensue.
As I said earlier, conceptually these options sound great at the onset, but many companies have reconsidered after walking through the process and implications for their organizations and opt to stick with a more traditional setup. What do you think? Has your organization tried either of these cost reduction measures – what was your experience like? If you’re considering implementing one of these methods, but need help with the details, we’re happy to help.
For more information, check out our comprehensive Key Systems 101 article or download our white paper.