Risk, Security, Safety & Resilience: Qualifications, Training, Skill- Measurement Scales
Ridley Tony
Experienced Leader in Risk, Security, Resilience, Safety, and Management Sciences | PhD Candidate, Researcher and Scholar
Risk, Security, Safety & Resilience, like many professions, require objective, verifiable measures of experience, qualifications and skill.
That is, courts, insurance policies, government/commercial tenders, prospective employers, professional groups, peers and education institutions require proof of specific education, knowledge and competency.
However, for the most part, both risk and security suffer from a dearth of demonstrable evidence in terms of objective qualifications, education and training.
Moreover, job titles, rank, roles, exposure and time-in-task are not proxies for measurable degrees of qualification and knowledge. Especially in contemporary, globalised times.
"As a rapidly changing world requires constant updating and widening of professional knowledge and skills, the (author) recognizes advances in the professional development landscape and particularly the growing importance of ‘micro-credentials’. For all twenty-first-century workers of all ages, including security professionals, keeping abreast of the pace and implications of positive and negative change is the main challenge that we all must confront.?"
(Wakefield and Gips, 2021)
Furthermore, most professionals and highly specialised vocations find it incredulous that such a simple demonstration of relevance, evidence and education is still required within risk, safety, resilience and security practice(s).
For example, you wouldn't (shouldn't) find people walking the halls of hospitals, emergency wards and medical treatment facilities with little more than a 3-5 day course attendance or a complete lack of formal, objective and certified education in the field of medicine, supplanted by the justification that they have 'been doing it a long time', or it says 'doctor', 'nurse' or 'expert' in their title.
By comparison, it is not unusual in many risk, security, safety or resilience circles.
Or, individuals and groups have 'other' qualifications.... now they are specialists, practitioners or 'professional' risk, security, resilience or safety experts.
Individual qualifications, skills, beliefs, practices and knowledge are increasingly becoming the basis for failure analysis investigation, the causality of errors/harm and litigation due to loss, harm or disruption. Insurance does not cover these people, practices or methodologies either.
Matters of 'security' are not all created or conceived equal, nor are the advanced academic programs that inform security within communities, companies or government.
In other words, 'security' remains a catchall phrase meaning many things too many audiences, practitioners and organisations.
This lack of clarity or confusion is often transferred to courses, accreditation and advanced academic courses.
As a result, an objective scale or unit of measure relevant to qualifications is required. Many countries, professions and vocational/professional endeavours already have such scales in place. The following outlines Australia's approach to applied, practical and professional standards of skills, training, knowledge and ultimately demonstrable qualifications.
"The organising framework for the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) is a taxonomic structure of levels and qualification types each of which is defined by a taxonomy of learning outcomes. The taxonomic approach is designed to enable consistency in the way in which qualifications are described as well as clarity about the differences and relationships between qualification types.?"
Notwithstanding, 'security' remains a mixed-bag of specialisation, context, deliverables, concepts and practices.
Enterprise Security Risk Management (ESRM) is more akin to a multi-story, multi-tenanted, high-rise apartment block than a single, 'neat' vocation.
Moreover, ascension and traversing of the skills complex requires many differing keys, qualifications and experiences.
In other words, in much the same way as medicine, accounting, engineering and other specific disciplines, there are many doors, specialisations but enterprise security risk management perhaps has far more subsets, knowledge pockets and requirements that someone, close to the top, needs to know about, coordinate and harmonise within any one organisation.
Yet, practical business understanding and practices remain a constant across all security and risk realms.
"Security management at the highest levels in organisations requires business acumen alongside the ability to assess risk appropriately and mitigate them effectively" (Gill, 2014)
The above visual maps scales of qualifications, associated educational taxonomy and indicative completion time(s).
However, as noted in the link to "Master of What?" above, these scales of education and qualifications alter yet again, as an arts, science or business administration (generalist) line of enquiry or educational outcome are not the same, with considerable variance in outcomes and practice(s). This includes the application of 'security' as a single or ongoing procedure.
"...the provision of effective security is paradoxically the first step towards decay, as and effective system will not only repel successful attacks, but also the prevent attacks being made... An illusion is then created that established security is unnecessary suggesting decay will follow until the degree of security falls to the point where an attack will succeed." (Gill, 1996)
AQF level 2 criteria?- Certificate II
Skills
Graduates at this level will have knowledge and skills for initial work, community involvement and/or further learning.
-undertake defined activities
-provide solutions to a simple issues and problems?
Cynics, practitioners and professionals alike lament the continued influence of past pedigrees, roles/ranks and general assumptions influencing recruitment, promotion or acceptance of 'security', 'risk', 'resilience' or 'safety' narrative within the industry, government or corporate circles.
"It has been suggested that one criterion for appointment to the role of security director is a pension from the policy or military" (Gill, 1996)
Which in turn is reflected or evident in the scales of evidence/proof informing risk, safety, security or resilience beliefs, practices or methodologies.
On a scale of 1 to 5, how do rank or rate?security risk management?content which informs or supports your application of security in public or private contexts?
In other words, is your use of security risk management content and knowledge sufficient to defend your choices in a court of law, the court of public opinion or professional/peer-review?
Moreover, how do you mix and match content to support your security risk management strategy, policies and procedures?
AQF level 5 criteria?- Bachelor Degree
Skills
Graduates at this level will have a broad range of cognitive, technical and communication skills to select and apply methods and technologies to:
领英推荐
-analyse information to complete a range of activities
-provide and transmit solutions to sometimes complex problems
-transmit information and skills to others?
Another point of concern (reality) is the way and rate in which educational institutions manufacture qualifications, course content and approved/endorsed knowledge at all levels of study and training.
"What is currently lacking... is the member associations' capacity to formally accredit university courses, to ensure that the curricula are fit for purpose"
(Wakefield, 2014)
In many circles, experience, job titles and applied knowledge remains an acceptable alternate to specific qualifications and education. Perhaps no more so than in the practice risk and security management. As a result, this poses a number of practical questions for current and potential representatives within the risk and security management industry. Such as, should I pursue risk and security qualifications or specific education standards? Does it matter? What is the difference between these levels?
Firstly, an individual and organisation must consider the application of knowledge and desired outcome. If all that is required is to apply the same standard processes and limited range of options to every situation, then?literally anyone can fulfil the role. That is, management is reduced to a short selection of group consensus or approved responses, repeated over and over. Failure is limited because everyone is doing it, so deviance is protection from context and knowledge because everyone is required to behave and act the same way.
AQF level 10 criteria?- Doctoral Degree
Skills
Graduates of a Doctoral Degree will have:
-cognitive skills to demonstrate expert understanding of theoretical knowledge and to reflect critically on that theory and practice
-cognitive skills and use of intellectual independence to think critically, evaluate existing knowledge and ideas, undertake systematic investigation and reflect on theory and practice to generate original knowledge
-expert technical and creative skills applicable to the field of work or learning
-communication skills to explain and critique theoretical propositions, methodologies and conclusions
-communication skills to present cogently a complex investigation of originality or original research for external examination against international standards and to communicate results to peers and the community
-expert skills to design, implement, analyse, theorise and communicate research that makes a significant and original contribution to knowledge and/or professional practice?
Which would reasonably lead to the misplaced belief that industry groups provide universal, 'fit-for-purpose' education and qualification substitute(s) or alternatives to dedicated educational institutions such as universities.
"Industry bodies are stove-piped groups that have their own agenda for generally one part of the security industry, but they want to represent us all"
(Cubbage and Brooks, 2012)
Which has become all the more pertinent with the rise and proliferation of 'resilience' narratives, claims and contemporary pursuit(s) by communities, governments, corporations and industries.
"Resilience thinking, an?approach that recognizes the complexity and interconnectedness of security challenges and advocates holistic and systemic solutions, has already become influential across multiple policy dimensions including international development, national security, urban design and management, and organizational risk management.?"
(Wakefield and Gips, 2021)
Again, requiring specific knowledge, education, qualifications and experience(s). Routinely not achieved by the application or validation of 'standards'.
"...most risk management standards provide a framework or process that takes a probabilistic approach to risk management, perhaps not wholly suitable for security risk management" (Brooks, 2011)
Especially when addressing or protecting against agile, intelligence, dynamic and adaptive human threat(s). Natural threats and environments too.
The question of discretionary study, qualifications and accreditation remains a ludicrous paradoxical notion to established professions such as medicine, engineering, law and education, yet it remains a dominant opt-in/out choice across the security, risk and management disciplines asserting they too are professions.
In other words, you simply don't assume the title of doctor, nurse, lawyer, engineer, teacher or other professional qualifiers without demonstrating considerable, specific, consistent and verifiable, objective education underpining one's qualifications and rights to practice in said area.
How is it then that just about any individual, department or organisation can insert?security,?risk?or?management?into their job title, curriculum or professional qualifications without any significant education or objective credentials on which it is based?
In sum, professional inclusion, ascent and practices require specific, measurable qualifications, skills, experience and an accepted body of knowledge.
Risk, security, safety and resilience practices, methodologies and appointments are no exclusion.
Despite a concerning, universal dearth of objective, demonstrable qualification(s) at all levels across public, private and commercial realms.
This reality presents a material risk to current beliefs, assumptions and assurances, evident in recent risk management, security management, resilience management and safety management shortfalls, failures and systemic risk(s).
The question for individuals, organisations, practices and industries remains extant.
That is, where do you sit on this or any other scale? Can you prove it? What are the implications and liabilities?
More litigation, public enquiry, investigation and scrutiny will focus on these anomalies, in time.
Tony Ridley, MSc CSyP MSyI M.ISRM
Security, Risk, Resilience, Safety & Management Sciences
Reference:
Australian Qualifications Framework (2013) 2nd Edition. Available at: https://www.aqf.edu.au/
Brooks, D. (2011) 'Security risk management: A psychometric map of expert knowledge structure', Risk Management,13(1/2) , pp. 17-41.?
Cubbage, C. and Brooks, D (2012) Corporate Security in the Asia Pacific Region: Crisis, Crime, Fraud and Misconduct. Francis and Taylor, Boca Raton, p.109.?
Gill, M.(1996) 'Risk, security and crime prevention: a foundation for improving theory and practice', International Journal of Risk, Security and Crime Prevention , 1(10), pp. 11-16.?
Gill, M. (2104) 'Exploring some contradictions of modern-day security', in Gill, M. (ed) The Security Handbook, 2nd ed, Palgrave McMillan, p.995?
Wakefield, A. (2014) 'Where next for the professionalisation of security?', in Gill, M. (ed) The Security Handbook, 2nd ed, Palgrave McMillan, p.931?
Wakefield, A. and Gips, M. (2021). Professional Security in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, in Gill, M. (ed), The Handbook of Security, 3rd ed, Palgrave Macmillan, pp.731-750?
Professor of Practice, Intelligence and Global Security Studies, Capitol Technology University.
1 年This is excellent! Thanks for posting it.
Aviation Security Consultant/Instructor/Auditor | Expert in Security and Training Techniques
2 年This is really constructive ever article I've red Tony Ridley, MSc CSyP MSyI M.ISRM, discussing this highly importance topic (specific qualifications and careers paths for Security Professionals) thanks for sharing this enrich and very informative piece Tony