The Security Alliance Gives Cautious Welcome....

[Cubit]

I would yes, and it would have to be in both.

If you make it so that certain people with 'experience' are excluded then its a pointless argument. Im sure there were similar arguments when gas safe/corgi did it along with driving licences etc.

There should be a competancy test. Then everyone would have to do one of those.

Im mainly thinking the proven skill set should be design, install, commision and service. Works for fire in that way cant see why it cant for intruder, cctv and access.

So what makes 'Security' different to the countless other industries involving bits of wire and electrickery? In reality, nothing.

It will never work, nor should it be treated differently. If i understand you correctly, no ifs, no buts, you gotta do a p1ssy NVQ in tools and Management - irrespective of your qualifications. If that is the case, the Engineering Council might just have something to say about it.

As for management, what courses/qualifications do you consider valid for that role?

[james.wilson]

security doesnt differ unless its a HUA then IMO it does.

Fire obviously differs and with the current relationships between cfoa and the security industry id hope any scheme would include fire.

As before we will have to agree to differ, i think it can work, the costs for the pro firm would be negligable and id suggest it include h&s training. Obvioulsy links would have to be forged between the licencing body and chas, construction line etc foe wholesale acceptance.

on the management side, i can see an argument for it, but thats not my suggestion, just design, install, commisioning and service.

as on the fire side and as we do now a design is checked on order. It neednt of been originally proposed by a trained and certed designer but must be signed off by one.

This would allow single skilled jobs, ie design or service only, but also allow full scope. Id base it on the sp203 scheme

[Cubit]

James, have you got yourself a seat on one of these quango's? you are giving a very good impression of it.

[james.wilson]

lol

[hpotter]

i hear you hp, but do you not think we are drifting into the jack of all trades, master of none area?

half empty/half full. jack of all or imo convergence. we can no longer think of our *trade* as one of the sparky/chippy/leaky ones. we are not as yet one of the geeky set. but its coming (esp as wireless fully kicks in).

Our own company used to be purly specialist in intruder. We then trained and employed to add the skills required etc in each other dicipline. Now thats just us, im sure others have an equally effective measure. But then we only work on the equipment we know. If we dont know it we cant work on it like a true expert etc. That is how manage multiple system types, ie cctv, intruder fire etc. Because we only work on what we know in each sector.

have posted sooo many times we only support eqpt we know. (scanny not gals etc). but as above, integration of systems will/is becoming common & the true expert will end up as a commitee, not a single eng unless we take training seriously - as an intustry.

but how many times on site have you met the 'alarm guy' only to wonder why you in the same industry as them?

only days with a y in it.

btw what happened to sito?

[james.wilson]

http://www.skillsforsecurity.org.uk/

nothing, but heavily manned weighted.

[hpotter]

wonder how they'll fair with sia shot through.

[Cubit]

half empty/half full. jack of all or imo convergence. we can no longer think of our *trade* as one of the sparky/chippy/leaky ones. we are not as yet one of the geeky set. but its coming (esp as wireless fully kicks in).

have posted sooo many times we only support eqpt we know. (scanny not gals etc). but as above, integration of systems will/is becoming common & the true expert will end up as a commitee, not a single eng unless we take training seriously - as an intustry.

only days with a y in it.

btw what happened to sito?

Unfortunately this industry has a poor track record for training, even when offered free gratis. Some/many manufacturers do offer training/support and at the Installers premises too, to minimise down time and disruption. Yet many cancel at the last minute with a weak/pathetic excuse - and those are the ones who bothered to inform.

Sure enough, a week or so later, tech support lines are busy with these same companies demanding urgent help with their men on site struggling with various problems.

Doesn't exactly suggest the companies have an eye on the future.

[james.wilson]

Id agree i think training should be mandatory.

[Guest Oxo]

Training, what a laugh.

No employer I have seen yet makes training a priority. They have only done this in my experience to get more certificates to hang on the wall.

Yes I have been on just about every one or two day course, have wads of certificates. All it meant was I could read and write. So many on these courses were neathanderals and I am suprised they even managed to drive to the training sites. Many a time I was asked to stop answering in "free question time" as I was told I was not giving the others a chance! Sorry, turning up early and reading the paperwork and retaining the knowledge must be a crime then!

Average muppet in this game now has no feeling of responsibility for his/her ( although the women I know do make more of an effort) actions. It is just, go to site press buttons and go home. Even then they do not test correctly ( even a member on here has said he never tests dual paths correctly).

Then we have our regulatory bodies ( covered enough in other threads), who condone this lack of basic principles.

Seems to me, and correct me if I am wrong. Most owners now want profit and sod the end result. I know it is a business, but...................

NSI/SSAIB/MLA/BLI make me laugh, self regulating self high wage leeches.

Oh lets add the rest of the "look how good we are" bodies.