Engineering. Architecture. Accountancy. The Law. Medicine... For some considerable time, these and a host of other established professions have instigated - and then continued to enforce - a requirement that those practitioners engaged in their sector absolutely must demonstrate continual learning. In some cases, the merest hint of failure to comply results in disciplinary action or, at the extreme, denial of the right to practise.

For many, this ongoing education is achieved by way of structured Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programmes. That is certainly true of the engineering profession, wherein The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers requires its 17,500 members to complete 30 hours of accredited CPD learning and study every year.

CPD is a proven medium (‘CPD: realistic or not?', pp26-29), so why is any suggestion of a compulsory requirement for it on a personal basis among security specialists viewed as such a political ‘hot potato', and one that - it must be said - the industry has manifestly failed to address?

Possibly, the UK's professional bodies are scared that, if they introduce mandatory CPD, factions of their membership could revolt and then subscription revenues will be lost.

In times past, the dominance of ‘second career' security managers has arguably strangled development, with too many believing that their "vast knowledge" of security - sometimes only self-verified - negates the need for any further learning. It doesn't. Thankfully, the more responsible (particularly senior) second career types are addressing this issue. One can point to many accountants, lawyers and IT professionals now succeeding in mainstream security roles.

The Security Institute continues to do a fabulous job with its Validation Board ‘benchmarking' of practitioners, but in order to prosper the security managers of tomorrow will need a defined career path in unison with continued learning.

If they truly want to be seen as professionals in their own right, security managers must be engaging in structured CPD. The security discipline requires something akin to The Architects' Registration Board's Register of Architects - only those competent to practise with up-to-date skills can ‘join'. An excellent standards marker for corporate employers. We also need an independent third party to administer CPD.

SMT has set the challenge. Who is willing to take it on?

Source

SMT