This article is part 2 of a 3-part series written by Graham Ludwig addressing integrity, compromise and global standards in the Security and Protection industry worldwide.
Read part 1 here.
Everyone is constantly on about raising standards within the Protection industry, but they are generally only concerned about the standards within their own borders. I don’t believe that we can truly reform our industry without global collaboration on best practice within the industry.
While the rest of the world talks globalisation, we who have been operating globally for so long don’t seem to have embraced this concept. While I may be talking idealistically I believe that the collaboration we need is around the implementation of a global standard for Protectors.
There are so many training institutes around the world with their own syllabus based on guidelines set by their countries regulatory body. (SIA, ASIS, ABCDEP, etc.) These regulatory bodies definitely serve a purpose, however, each body general only looks at a syllabus or requirement for their own country.
In addition, each training school has their own pass-fail benchmark, but a 70% pass at Company A may, in fact, be a fail at Company B. So how do we determine whether Peters qualification is more valuable than Pauls? We don’t. What we need to do is assess each protector in line with an industry-wide, globally recognised criteria.
Training schools aside, I would feel a lot more secure in the use of the Protector if I knew that they had been assessed according to a globally recognised standard and were not found wanting. While I may be talking idealistically I believe that we need industry leaders to collaborate on the implementation of a global standard for Protectors.
Unfortunately, since there is very little cross-border collaboration there is no incentive to develop an internationally recognised standard or best practice assessment that tells us that Protector A in Germany is as competent, or more than, Protector B in the USA.
While it’s clear that the level of training varies greatly, both globally and even within each country, the reality is that there are recognised best practice principles that can be applied globally.
Wouldn’t it be great to contract a supplier in a different region or country knowing that they have a similar ethos and follow the same appraisal process? I would love the assurance that a Protector in a different country is both legally compliant and competent to perform their assigned role within the team. Legal compliance is the easy part however the alignment with my expectation, or what I believe should be standard protocol, will remain a concern until I have actually worked with the person.
So, my recurring question to the Professionals out there is why would we not collaborate to establish a Global best practice assessment for protectors irrespective of their training, background, work experience or country of origin?
Click here to sign up to our newsletter, and get part 3 of this series sent to your inbox.