Continuing Professional Development (CPD) is best defined as the systematic maintenance, improvement and broadening of your knowledge and skills and the development of personal qualities necessary for you to carry out your professional duties.
Sounds great. So why is it that even the slightest suggestion of a compulsory requirement for CPD on a personal basis among practitioners in the security sector becomes such a contentious issue (particularly so for those involved in the provision of contracted security services and consultancy)? Why has the security industry failed to tackle the issue head-on? Being realistic about matters, the majority of senior operational (rather than administrative) security professionals will agree that CPD should form an essential element of their career continuation and progression.
In most discussions on the subject, any argument will quickly turn into a positive statement. Security practitioners will say: “Yes. CPD should be a requirement,” but those fine words will then be added too… “for everybody else, that is, and on a personal basis. It’s not for me, simply because of my vast experience and advanced knowledge of the overall subject.”
It may be said – with some degree of truth – that although CPD is considered a realistic requirement, if bets were to be taken the objection odds would be quite short among the industry’s higher echelons (and specifically among those who control the purse strings).
Of course, this attitude may well change as the dominance of second career managers in the security sector gradually diminishes with time. With a full career and educational structure beginning to take shape, and much thought among industry professionals moving in that direction, employment within security will become more attractive as a first career.
A career ably supported by Security Industry Authority (SIA) licensing – initially for contract professionals and, through time, hopefully encompassing the in-house team.
Mandatory learning function
The professional bodies have been somewhat reluctant to introduce CPD as a mandatory learning function. They fear that placing such a definite requirement on their total existing membership – only some of whom undertake CPD without any pressure to do so, and more than likely with the full support of their employer – will result in a substantial reduction in numbers.
In turn, this would lead to reduced finances thanks to the failure of the less enthusiastic when it comes to renewing their annual membership. Some professional bodies have the necessary rules in place for CPD, but have retained the voluntary mode without any form of annual check or personal declaration on membership renewal (which, in itself, will require additional administrative effort by the body concerned if this is made mandatory).
In addition to attitudes towards any mandatory requirement for the enforcement of CPD, the factors of cost and time must be considered in relation to both the individual security practitioner and their paymaster. Those who are self-employed, as well as those employed by smaller organisations, will obviously find compliance with a mandatory system pretty difficult to say the least. However, it’s not an insurmountable problem. There is always a solution.
Considering the situation in the UK, it seems that the declaration and proof of possession of an acceptable professional qualification at managerial level and above in terms of obtaining an SIA licence has been put on the back burner (even in those sectors where licenses for operatives are already granted). Perhaps the SIA will accept a range of recently-completed but non-mandatory CPD to support the application for an original licence from a long-qualified senior security practitioner?
The declaration of acceptable existing initial qualification standards at management level has been extremely slow. This will obviously have an impact on the implementation of licensing, as time has to be allowed for currently unqualified personnel to obtain a necessary qualification which – at managerial level or above, and with the appropriate depth of study required – cannot be achieved on a ‘quick fix’ basis.
Wider appreciation of CPD
Can we expect an announcement on CPD requirements in the near future? Based on present standards, the answer must be ‘No’. To have the early implementation of a licence requirement for operational managers may leave the industry in something of a quandary.
In days gone by, compliance with a CPD requirement meant attendance at an approved conference or training function specifically devoted to an aspect of ‘pure’ security. Today, a much wider appreciation of the full depth of CPD is manifest. Consequently, there is now a range of additional activities beyond the recognised core criteria routinely undertaken by most corporate security functions which could – and most probably should – be included under the heading of CPD.
The study of ‘management’, for example, plus a selected range of legislation – both criminal and civil – ought to fall within the boundaries of CPD, as indeed should many other peripheral subjects.
The presentation of a lecture (of reasonable duration and concentrating on a security-related topic) to discerning senior conference delegates involves a great deal of research, certainly equating to attendance at a series of lectures. In much the same way, the authorship of a given text for inclusion in a respected industry journal demands an in-depth study of the subject under review.
Similarly, the organisation and presentation of formal and full in-house training in security subjects (perhaps at a lower level) should be acceptable – CPD ought to work for community-based security projects in much the same way as it does for participation in the activities of recognised security bodies.
In these days of the country-wide availability of further education in either full-time, part-time or distance learning formats, many senior security practitioners participate in the study of security-related subjects for academic or professional qualifications which, with certification by the provider, could and should be considered as CPD. Tutoring on such programmes should also be included.
Others seek to advance their existing professional and/or academic qualification to a higher level through additional study. There is a strong argument to suggest that this should also be recognised.
The readers of Security Management Today (SMT) will no doubt have many other suggestions on the means of accumulating CPD credits, how those credits are allocated, what is reasonable and achievable and which are appropriate to their own avenue of work in the security field. Write to The Editor of SMT. The correspondence pages of this journal are ready to air your comments and ideas!
What constitutes a credit?
The present (and apparent) policy of the SIA in requiring all security trainers to be in possession of a training qualification – in addition to holding security experience at an appropriate level and/or a professional security qualification – may present problems if that maxim is included in respect of the acceptability of CPD training.
Will there be sufficient numbers of acceptable trainers to provide the necessary quantity and quality of CPD training demanded by the industry (particularly in respect of what could be considered as specialist aspects of security work)?
One must also ask what constitutes a credit or even multiple credits? Must each CPD ‘event’ be individually assessed? If so, to what criteria, and by whom? How many credits are to be accumulated by a management practitioner over a period of, say, one year or even three years (ie the length of the licence period)? Is 30 or maybe 35 hours per year the yardstick?
CPD is far from being a new concept. Accountants, lawyers, medical practitioners, architects and engineers – in addition to many other professions – have instigated (and continue to enforce) a CPD requirement on those engaged in their sector. Much – if not all – of that CPD activity is controlled through the relevant professional body. Any failure to comply with CPD requirements in many avenues of controlled, professional employment results in disciplinary action or denial of the right to operate.
Why should those engaged in the security industry not be held to account in a similar fashion at a time when serious efforts are being made to raise the profile and effectiveness of the sector as well as those practitioners employed within it and by it?
Will CPD become a reality?
While ultimate control over CPD (for the contract professional, at least) will probably rest with the SIA and Skills for Security, security’s professional bodies – which should be, and probably are, in a position to arrange training functions attracting CPD credits – will be expected to play their part in raising the educational stakes for security practitioners. Bodies like The Security Institute and the International Institute of Security, for example.
Is CPD in the security sector a realistic possibility or not? The requirement for CPD is certainly realistic, specifically for all those practitioners engaged at management level and above. However, great care must be exercised in ensuring that, if it be declared as a requirement for either licence issue or renewal in the contract sector of the industry, the requirement is explicitly publicised in detail and in writing. Without any loopholes.
CPD should be undertaken by all security professionals. There must be no permission for a range of inappropriate exceptions to the rule decided upon by appointed persons who may have little or no understanding of the wider security industry.
Just think for a minute… If you do not know where you are heading in your career, you could arrive at the wrong destination. Where are you now? Where do you want to be? What is the best route to get to where you want to be? How can you ensure that you achieve your stated objectives?
If security practitioners are serious about being seen as professionals, they should be demanding CPD. Not tomorrow, but now.
