Increasingly, suppliers who provide certification on their products also certify individuals. They often accept the transfer of individuals from one installer company to another.
Those of us who are reputable companies accept this – even if it does mean the possibility of investing in training an individual only for them to move on after the event. Although, in real terms, this offers a stronger incentive to both parties to ensure satisfaction in the workplace and, hence, long-term staff retention.
Controlled as a business is SSAIB accredited. We have a team of people who are highly qualified with years of experience of installing security systems. They fully understand and are abreast of the regulations.
As for me, whilst I can connect and commission hardware and tackle the more intricate IT and networking elements now associated with the industry, if you ask me to explain the regulations for, say, intruder grade 2, or grade 3 on my own, I’m lost.
The intruder systems installed and verified by those with experience is important. They sign off the system and, as such, should be accredited in a regulated and professional manner.
If individual, independent installers had to be both accredited and certified, it would help the industry’s overall professional standing.
It would help accredited businesses compete on an equal footing. It could also tie in with insurance, much as CORGI has achieved in the gas equipment installation business.
I think the main issues are to do with cost and insurance. The company invests a lot – of both time and money – in becoming accredited and certified. It involves validation checks, regulatory inspections and training of individuals.
They do not always want to train someone who subsequently leaves the company, taking the qualification with them.
The individual, of course, wants transferable qualifications. You can’t unlearn skills. Historically, supplier businesses would certify a company based on the individuals who were certified. The individual certificates were owned by the employee’s company.
In my opinion, the person responsible for signing off on each system should be accredited as well as the business.
In reality, it is the company that holds the professional indemnity insurance and not the individuals. The company holds the risk.
Individuals might not like the cost and insurance implications of being independently accredited.
Enjoy the latest fire and security news, updates and expert opinions sent straight to your inbox with IFSEC Insider's essential weekly newsletters. Subscribe today to make sure you're never left behind by the fast-evolving industry landscape.
Sign up now!
Might I respectfully suggest that you read the proposed EN Services Standard that is currently being voted on, prEN 1673 across Europe. IFSEC Global summarised this earlier this year:-
https://www.ifsecglobal.com/euralarm-backs-european-services-standard-fire-safety-security-systems/ and you can read more by checking the Euralarm website- https://www.euralarm.org/news-media/press-releases/new-services-standard-is-a-game-changer-for-fire-safety-and-security-industry
This proposed new standard answers the points you raised and has been carefully drawn up over a number of years by a Cenelec TC79 committee to meet the needs of users and installers alike.
it may be on the way have a look at the new services standard EN 16762 services for fire safety systems and security systems .
Hi Michael,
I teach the modern apprenticeship in electronic fire and security systems in Scotland. This qualification is a day release course completed over 3 years.
This qualification is accredited by skills for security and SQA, I have always believed that in order to sign off a system and confirm it is compliant; the person at a minimum should have achieved this apprenticeship. Just like every other trade.
What are your thoughts on this?
I think this would strengthen the Apprenticeship programme and perhaps it would be strengthen employer support of such programmes nationwide.
David scott
Thanks for the update Martin!
metric_man Hi David, I think there are a number of standards and accreditations involved. There is also the potential for a lot of overlap. For example those with electical qualifications. The apprentiship programme and qualification that you are providing sounds wonderful. It is certainly a strong step in the right direction. I think boodies such as the insurance industry, SSAIB, etc really need to get their act together. There should be a clear directive, self installed by unqualified and uncertified personnel, = limited emergency service response, and no insurance payout. It could go further, that evidence produced by any equipment… Read more »
Michael Lines metric_man
Hi Michael,
that is exactly what has happened with the standard that Matin Harvey and I mentioned! The security inspectorates throughout Europe and the manufacturers and the installers have worked tirelessly for several years to create a workable service standard, and the voting also included specifiers and insurers. Please download the standard, have a good read and join us in supporting this important step forward!
As with any form of Training or Education it’s the person that takes the course!!!! A company can say they have 10 PHD’s 25 Engineers etc We give training and only certify the individual. As people can be transient the only credible certification a company can have is procedural such as ISO etc