We must guard against making comparisons based on antecedence

However, I do wonder if Chris' self-confessed cynical views regarding the adequacy of former military or police officers to hold security management positions in the corporate sector are a fair reflection of the professional standards we expect today? Indeed, I also wonder whether or not Chris' train of thought is way behind the times?

Undoubtedly, our profession does have strong ex-services links. Hardly surprising given the great importance placed upon protective security experience and ability in the face of the current threat environment. To perceive such a career path or history as being inadequate for the corporate world - as Chris so obviously does - pales beyond belief.

Today's military security professional will be just as familiar with business processes as any home-grown corporate executive. He or she will be comfortable when assessing the security risks to business objectives, whether that entails the operational deployment of military capability or the protection of a multi-million pound project, and will use exactly the same processes as any corporate colleague.

Defence in today's world is composed of Management Boards working to budgets and running the component business through Balance Scorecards and the like. Pitching for security resources against this backdrop poses exactly the same challenges to security managers as it would for those in the corporate sphere. That being the case, let's not make comparisons based on antecedence, but rather concentrate on the competencies needed to take our profession forward. More needs to be done in this area, particularly if we are to convince employers of our worth.

Then, it will not be a matter of what ‘suit' a prospective employee might have worn in the past. They will earn their right to be a security manager in the corporate environment thanks to the demonstration of proven ability measured against the competencies required of the post in question.

In my view, membership of The Security Institute is the way forward, and a path that I would recommend to all practising professionals in the security arena.

Frederick Wood FSyI. Principal Security Advisor, DLO/Ministry of Defence

The Editor replies:

Thank You for writing to SMT, Frederick, particularly on a topic that is becoming more than a little controversial. While it would never be wise to discount ex-senior military and police personnel from taking a post in the corporate sector, it would also be blinkered if we were to neglect the obvious trends that are beginning to shape a very different security landscape.

End users who visited last month's IFSEC Exhibition at the NEC cannot have failed to notice the plethora of high-tech systems on display. The solutions providers are devising superb products for businesses small and large that are way beyond the basic analogue solutions of yesteryear, for example.

In tandem with this, licensing of security operatives by the Security Industry Authority is strengthening the quality of operational personnel, but at the same time lessening the long-established reliance on manpower. Security management in the year 2006 is about people management, process management and systems management in equal measure.

For many years, large corporates have recruited security directors largely on the basis of their contact lists and the fact that they have worn either a police or military uniform at some point in the past. In a world where facilities professionals and IT managers are muscling-in on areas hitherto the security manager's domain, it would seem prescient for corporate concerns to be thinking a little more about the business imperative first and the contact book second. Today, it should be about what you know, not who you know. That is where CPD comes in (‘CPD: realistic or not?', SMT, April 2006, pp26-29).

Security managers should be business people first, and security professionals second - that is how they will justify their existence in the long term. If they lose sight of that fact, then those managers may well precipitate their own extinction. That would be a tragedy.

Companies who decide to penny-pinch by ditching the security practitioner in favour of a general factotum - a Jack-of-all-Trades-and-Master-of-None - are in for a rude awakening, by which time the crassness of their decision will be too late to rectify.