The security professional

To this end, a top priority for The Security Institute (TSI) during 2004 is to create a far greater awareness of what it is we do. Not least, of course, because we do have a genuinely unique role. That of providing recognised, independent validation of security professionals' qualifications and experience.

Security is one of the oldest professions, but it has lagged well behind others – namely the law, accountancy and engineering – in laying down the level of qualification needed for full professional status (and in having a system in place that recognises this achievement). Indeed, the need to fulfil this role lay at the heart of TSI's foundation back in 1999.

TSI: professional status
The Institute bestows several categories of membership. Fellow signifies the highest level of attainment. Member signifies that the individual's experience is at a managerial level or equivalent in the security sector. Associate or Student membership indicates that the individual is in the first few years of their career or currently undertaking a recognised security qualification. Affiliates are not security practitioners, but work in a closely related field.

One of the strengths of the Institute's validation process is that it's completely transparent. Information provided by TSI in both its literature and on the web site (www.security-institute.org) means that, in most cases, candidates will have a good idea of what category they fall into prior to application.

The points needed for particular membership categories are 51-85 (Fellow), 21-50 (Member) and 11-20 (Associate). In practice, candidates will be assessed against a number of criteria. The maximum number of points you can gain for practical industry experience is 45, broken down into 20 for security management, 15 for corporate/group or multi-site security management and 10 points for more general security experience.

Security-related academic qualifications can gain you 10 points, as will security examinations, other qualifications (such as degrees and security-related courses) and other contributions (for example efforts in the field of publications).

Promotion of qualifications
The Institute doesn't have its own qualifications and examinations. Rather, its role is to recognise appropriate courses and the level of expertise they denote.

When TSI was first established, the sector was characterised by poor awareness of the qualifications that existed and what they actually signified. This made life somewhat difficult for employers looking to assess the skills of prospective employees, and indeed meant that many practitioners weren't receiving the recognition they deserved.

A key aspect of TSI's role has been to promote industry qualifications. Our Yearbook and Directory of Qualifications lists the various qualifications and the number of points they each represent within the Institute's validation process. The 2004 edition will be published in the very near future.

Security is one of the oldest professions, but it has lagged well behind others – namely the law, accountancy and engineering – in laying down the level of qualification needed for full professional status

TSI's Validation Board – essentially a panel consisting of security sector experts – reviews all applications. Membership of the Board is representative of the whole security profession, and is required to include at least one person of prominent status from the Government, the corporate security and public sectors, consultancy and security service provider groupings and the academic sector.

The validation process and policies surrounding it have to be robust in order to retain confidence and commitment from all relevant stakeholders. I believe that we've achieved this. However, that's really not enough. We also have to be flexible enough to evolve in line with changing trends and needs within the security sector.

One of the security sector's most striking characteristics is the considerable number of individuals who were formally in police or military roles, and it's certainly the case that general experience in the services provides a good grounding for security tasks. That said, it's now increasingly the case that a broader range of career backgrounds could be said to have relevant (although non-management) experience – for example, security officers and CCTV monitoring personnel – and we want to ensure that this is duly recognised in the validation process.

For this reason, we've recently removed the 'Service experience' category under which marks have been awarded and replaced it with 'General security experience'. We hope that this change will help to encourage more individuals in the early part of their career to view the Institute as being relevant for them, and an organisation that can help them to develop in their chosen profession.

As things stand, 20% of TSI joiners are joining as Fellows, 65% as Members and 15% as Associates. We'd certainly like to see more individuals joining in the Associate category, and indeed would also like to encourage those who are operating in roles related to security (for example specialist recruitment professionals) to join as Affiliates.

Checks are now in place
The validation process is designed such that it's straightforward to be upgraded to Member or Fellow once a practitioner can show they've acquired sufficient experience.

To further reinforce confidence in the validation process, we've also introduced a system of background checks whereby we use an external consultant to confirm the identity of membership candidates and their level of qualification. As a matter of good governance, it's necessary for a professional body such as the Institute to satisfy itself (and other relevant external bodies) that our admission procedures are beyond reproach.

It's one thing having a fair and thorough validation process, but there's a completely separate challenge in communicating precisely and simply what each level of membership signifies, particularly to individuals who are not security practitioners themselves (Human Resources managers being a good case in point). And yet this is something we have to do if such individuals are to see the Institute and the membership that it awards as helping them to select the right candidate for the job.