Is 'security' an increasingly 'shapeshifting' and 'multi-centred' notion that is annoying and angering consumers?

Protean (shapeshifting) is a recurring label assigned to 'security' regularly by academics and consumers alike. 

What it was yesterday is not what it is today?

Is that a bad thing? 

It is if you aren't clear or transparent to consumers. 

Especially where money is involved. 

The world, the local environments and general concept of 'security' are evolving. 

Part of the problem lays with consumers not fully understanding or appreciating the adaptive requirements of security. 

This is particularly apparent when security is a 'grudge expenditure', and consumers insist on buying a specific 'thing' such as camera, people, locks, etc. 

It shouldn't be that surprising that in time, your order from the 'security menu' fails to suit the risk or requirement for security. 

Part of the problem lays with security practitioners. 

Many choose or are forced to trim the security risk management message, budget and required processes just to get things moving, past management or use the budget they have. 

This results in 'top of the pile' priority decision making that in turn results in select security application and limited understanding by consumers who are too busy to learn. 

Not surprisingly, things change, or the bigger picture dominates the small story consumed in proposals and procurement. 

Providers also play a part. 

The gap between promises, practicalities, profits and results is growing. 

This is annoying and angering consumers. 

The 'just get the business' motivations. 

Needing to stay in business. 

Killing off the competition. 

Or increasing revenue and profits year-on-year when you are essentially just doing the same thing today you did yesterday are all factors. 

Shapeshifting is accurate. 

It is part evolution, part consumer/practitioner/provider and part market forces. 

But most of all, it is a lack of time to understand, a lack of time to educate and a bigger than 'fair' influence of poor providers and experiences. 

This contributes to security being labelled a 'tainted trade'. 

You get what you pay for in many regards. 

Price is definitely no guarantee of quality either. 

Those with any military experience will be familiar with the 'centre of gravity' concept. 

Modern international businesses enhance resilience and efficiency by being polycentric (multi-centred), which reduces the vulnerability of a single centre of gravity.

Some security providers or systems mirror this business reality. 

It can improve resilience but at the same time confuse and annoy consumers who can't get a consistent, consensus or service from the same provider or system. 

The client organisation may not achieve this either, but they demand it of their security and risk management systems or providers. 

Is the expectation realistic? 

Or is the provider and systems just so 'unalike' and they haven't accurately informed their customers. 

A bit of both. 

The world is not made up of clones. 

Nor is the security and risk management profession and local context and capacity vary. 

It is not in any way an excuse, just the facts and possibly the missing honesty not contained in glossy brochures, sales pitches or annual service costs. 

Multi centred may be of benefit, but multiple versions of the facts or 'truth' are not. 

Consumers that were appeased and received a service at the price they demanded or deemed 'appropriate' are the most likely to view security in a negative light. 

Providers and practitioners that 'settled for less' or undersold the issues just to get some outcome are likely involved in the equation too. 

The sales and marketing content and strategies far removed from operational realities and facts are largely to blame. 

Ironically these are the most visible often elevated entity. 

Perhaps it is less about the changing and adaptive security landscape and available solutions and more about the questionable and inconsistent means in which some people or companies permit input and outcomes to be marketed that annoys and angers everyone due to the lack of accountability or transient nature of many of the sales/marketing individuals who move from company or industry at will. 

Everyone is right. 

Everyone is wrong. 

What is your role, and how much of each do you represent?

Tony Ridley. 

Enterprise Security Risk Management and Security Science