Global Harmonisation Without Uniformity

Globalization of security has been seen.

The modern enterprise is based in multiple jurisdictions. The supply chain reaches across countries. The information network is a globalized system in which the nodes interact in real time. Security issues do not respect jurisdictional boundaries, nor is it uncommon for threats to materialize at once in multiple locations. An attack on computer systems in one region affects those in another. An interruption in shipping in one jurisdiction creates problems elsewhere along the supply chain.

This reality has prompted certain aspects of security operations to develop in international cooperation.

Aviation security operates according to global principles. Maritime security abides by international law. Cybersecurity standards are set through international cooperation and information sharing.

These trends point to a significant change.

Local security is becoming global security.

The Challenge of Global Alignment

Even in the face of this development, there continues to be an incredible amount of fragmentation within the nature of the security profession.

There are licensing schemes that differ according to country.

There is great variation in training programs.

Professional profiles also vary by region.

While some regions have security professionals operating in a very well-regulated manner, other places have security personnel who are loosely trained and whose job is mostly based on hands-on work.

There are those who focus on ensuring professionalism through strict adherence to procedures, while there are other regions where such professionalism is attempted.

These result in inconsistencies.

A security professional deemed competent in one jurisdiction would not necessarily enjoy the same reputation in another place. Skills do not cross national lines easily. Qualifications are not transferable either.

Professional identity is difficult to establish as a result of this problem.

The globalization of the security industry only highlights this fragmentation problem.

Why Uniformity Is Not the Answer

The other option could be to have everything standardized.

A universal licensing process.

Universal training requirements.

A universal definition of competence.

Initially, this seems like a solution to many problems.

However, uniformity has its own set of dangers.

Security situations around the world vary greatly. Laws are different. Culture affects the exercise of authority. Risk is dependent on the local political, economic, and social environment.

What works in one country might not work elsewhere.

By standardizing things, there is an assumption made that the issues of security are all the same in each environment.

This assumption is false and dangerous.

Harmonisation as a More Viable Approach

Rather than uniformity, what is needed is harmonization.

Harmonization does not necessarily demand sameness in the systems used.

What it demands is that they be compatible.

It means that the systems can work on their own yet be aligned on a set of similar standards.

Professionally, this would mean:

• the acknowledgment of a common knowledge base
• a matching of core competencies
• cross-recognition among jurisdictions
• the provision of room for adaptation

 

This makes it possible for each system to remain relevant even as they contribute to a larger professional whole.

Lessons from Other Professions

This is not a new model.

Others have also gone through such a process in their profession.

Qualifications in the medical field can be validated globally by equivalence criteria which respect the individual regulations of other places while keeping some general standards of competence. The engineering qualification can be exchanged for one from another jurisdiction using international arrangements that recognise some competencies without necessarily following the same training route. Lawyers work under different legal systems, but there may be some standards that apply.

They were not all recognised globally due to similarities.

They were recognised because of harmonisation.

They created knowledge structures that could be harmonised easily.

The Role of Structured Knowledge

Harmonization relies on one crucial element: structured knowledge.

The absence of a clearly articulated body of knowledge makes harmonization challenging.

Where every region has a different conception of what constitutes competence, there is no basis for comparison. Where there is no common ground in the definition of qualifications, it is impossible to map those qualifications. In the absence of any such mapping, recognition is impossible.

But with the knowledge structured, it is possible to:

• map competencies between different systems
• compare qualifications
• achieve equivalency
• facilitate professional mobility

 

Knowledge structure is the basis for harmonization.]

Implications for Security Professionalisation

For security to develop into a professional discipline, it needs to find a way to align itself globally.

Not by enforcing strict uniformity.

But through systematic harmonization.

This necessitates the creation of structures that:

• identify key knowledge disciplines
• permit specialization per industry sector
• facilitate professional development paths
• ensure inter-jurisdictional recognition

 

These structures do not impose inflexibility on national levels.

They create a common framework within which such flexibility can be exercised.

They permit individuals to shift jurisdictions while retaining professional status. They enable organizations to develop capabilities consistently across borders.

From Fragmentation to Alignment

Security already takes place within a globalized world.

The next logical move would be to harmonize its concepts, education, and implementation.

Harmonization provides an avenue for this.

Harmonization appreciates differences but provides coherence at the same time. Harmonization enables differences to exist without disconnecting them.

Harmonization makes systems compatible but does not homogenize them.

This process is not only a matter of technique.

Conclusion

There’s no question now about whether security is global.

It is.

The question is about whether the industry will change to accommodate that fact.

Uniformity is not essential.

Alignment is.

Without alignment, fragmentation will hinder professional development and recognition.

With alignment, though, it will be feasible to develop an industry that works internationally but is attuned to local conditions.

This does not mean making security uniform throughout the world.

It means making it comparable and connected.

This is what makes an industry into a profession