Tag: Security Operations

Why physical security teams struggle with multiple systems in SOC management platforms

Posted on August 4, 2026 by - Featured, Industry Expertise

Picture your security operations center (SOC).

Your SOC gets an incoming alarm through your access control platform. An operator receives it and switches to the VMS to pull video, navigating to the right cameras and time stamp. Then flips back to the access control system to check the badge log. Then opens a third platform to log the incident and check SOPs for a phone number. Then a fourth to notify the on-call guard. Then a spreadsheet to track response time.

By the time the full picture is assembled, several minutes have passed. In security operations, where moments matter, this can be an eternity. And when alerts are coming in that are false, consuming an operator’s time, these critical incidents might even get missed among the noise (which is a real problem).

This is the reality for most physical security teams today; and it’s not because they haven’t invested in good technology, but because that technology was never designed to work in combination with one another.

Why are physical security teams managing so many disparate systems?

The average SOC operator uses 4.7 different applications in a single shift. At organizations with more than 10 locations, that climbs to 5.6. That’s according to our 2026 State of Physical Security Operations benchmark study, which surveyed 300 security professionals across mid-to-large U.S. enterprises.

Every time an operator switches applications, they are trying to get more context on the security incident. They manually reconstruct timelines that should be automatically compiled for them. They copy data between tools (a task that 19% of respondents said they’d eliminate first). The work of connecting the dots falls on the operators, not the systems.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: most physical security stacks weren’t built. They accumulated.

An organization deploys access control from one vendor. Cameras from another. They add a visitor management system. A guard tour platform. An incident reporting tool. Each of these decisions made sense in isolation. Each vendor had the best product in its category at the time.

But nobody asked how the data would flow between them.

Security operations management didn’t create this problem, but they are tasked with managing it. 

Why disparate systems are so hard to connect

Legacy physical security systems weren’t designed for integration with other products. They were designed to do one thing well: control access to a door, record video, identify water intrusion. The idea that all of this data might need to live in one place, talk to each other in real time, and surface actionable intelligence for an operator was, frankly, an afterthought.

Proprietary products that don’t “play well with others” (i.e. integrate easily) can mean that operators are forced to tab back and forth between multiple systems without being able to gain a full view of what’s happening. 

The result is what security teams deal with every day: systems that technically work but operationally don’t. Data that exists but isn’t connected. Insights that are possible in theory but impossible to extract in practice without a team of people manually bridging the gap.

The disparate systems problem is bigger than it looks

As organizations grow, the problem compounds fast.

HiveWatch’s research found that as an organization roughly doubles in headcount, the number of connected devices it monitors more than quadruples: from an average of 447 devices to 1,798. Daily alarm volume climbs from 293 to 421+. And the false alarm rate jumps from 29% to 44%.

The cost of this can skyrocket if not addressed. For example, the average hourly rate for an operator is between $19 and $25 per hour. Spending 50% of their time can mean losing $19k to $26k a year on looking at things that don’t matter. Multiply by multiple people per shift and you have quite the resource drain on your hands. 

That means larger organizations are processing over 100 false alarms per day before finding a single real incident. Operators are managing thousands of devices, sifting through hundreds of alarms, across multiple platforms, and expected to not miss anything.

The tools haven’t kept pace with the growth. The humans are absorbing the difference.

This is how false alarms become a massive problem for security operations. It’s not just about the cost of chasing bad alerts – though that’s real, with industrywide false alarms costing the U.S. emergency response system an estimated $3.1 billion annually. It’s about what false alarms prevent: the ability of operators to respond quickly and confidently to actual problems.

When your GSOC is juggling five screens to triage and respond to a single alarm, a real incident is waiting in the queue . The real incident doesn’t announce itself as real, you have to wade through many to find it.

Why finding the right technology that brings systems together is tough

What a modern SOC needs is a true operational layer: something that doesn’t just collect data from disparate systems, but normalizes it, connects it in the right way, and surfaces it in a single place that an operator can easily see and act on.

That’s a fundamental engineering challenge that requires deep knowledge of all of the systems and platforms. The challenge can be amplified by vendors that aren’t truly open or willing to integrate with other systems. Solving this challenge requires that someone have the ability to handle different data schemas, alarm or alert structures, and formats across vendors that have been in the market for decades. 

It requires, frankly, a lot of unglamorous work that most companies find hard to fix. Most physcial security teams don’t have IT resources dedicated to help optimize their tools, and contracting with the people who deployed the systems can be cost prohibitive.

The promise of “unified security management” has been made many times. Usually what gets delivered is a dashboard that aggregates information but doesn’t actually allow operators to see everything they need to see and ACT within a single platform. Operators still have to context-switch. They’re just doing it in slightly fewer tabs. 

There’s also the loss of critical data being collected from these systems, where it can help paint the picture of a security program and how it works from day to day. 

The 56% of security programs stuck at maturity Level 2 or Level 3 in our benchmark research, where processes exist but aren’t consistently followed and technology is deployed but not optimized, aren’t stuck there because they haven’t tried. They’re stuck because they’ve paid for systems that look connected on paper, but fall apart when things get busy. 

There’s a better way to run this

You bought good physical security tools. The problem isn’t the tools. The problem is that they aren’t connected.

You don’t need to replace your ACS, your VMS, or your guard management platform. HiveWatch sits on top of the systems you already have: your cameras, access control, alarm systems, and pulls everything into one screen. Instead of jumping between six tools, an operator sees a single feed of what’s happening right now, already sorted by what matters most. When a door forced-open alarm comes in, they don’t just get the alert, they get the nearby camera footage, who badged in last, and how to respond for that site, all in one place. Routine false alarms get resolved automatically before anyone has to look at them, so the alerts that reach a human are the ones that actually need one.

One incident queue. No more tab switching.

If your security operations team is still stitching together a picture of what happened from five different screens at 2 a.m., the problem isn’t their effort. 

It’s a problem that can be easily solved.

Want to see how leading security programs have unified their systems and improved  operations? See the HiveWatch platform →

Or download the full 2026 State of Physical Security Operations benchmark study to see how your program stacks up.

Measuring SOC performance: Why your team’s confidence might hide the real gap

Posted on July 8, 2026 by - Featured, Industry Expertise

Ninety-three percent of physical security leaders say they’re confident their program would detect a coordinated threat.

That number sounds great. It also happens to be nearly meaningless.

We surveyed 300 security professionals at U.S. organizations with 500+ employees and an established SOC (or concrete plans to build one). We asked them how they’d rate their programs. We asked how confident they felt. And then we asked something harder: How often do you actually meet your own SLAs?

The answer: 19%.

Only 1 in 5 organizations always meets their service level agreements for incident response time, alarm processing rate, and time to resolution. The other 81% fall short of their own commitments at least some of the time. More than 40% miss them often enough that “sometimes” or “occasionally” was the most honest answer they could give.

Confidence runs 74 points ahead of actual performance.

You can’t effectively manage physical security operations without measuring them

Most security teams don’t have reliable mechanisms to track SLA performance.

When teams can’t measure consistently, they fill the gap with confidence. The program feels mature because the team is experienced, the technology is in place and the SOC is running. Everything seems fine because there’s no clear signal that it isn’t.

That’s not negligence. It’s a systems problem. And it’s the most important finding in our research on physical security operations management.

The same teams processing 342 alarms a day – roughly 1 in 3 of which is false, meaning more than 100 noise events arrive before a real alarm – still report near-universal confidence in catching a true incident.

Larger organizations hit 421+ daily alarms, with a self-reported false alarm rate approaching 44%. (Within our customer base we find this to be closer to 80-90%.) That volume alone should create doubt. But without consistent SOC measurement against defined standards, it’s difficult to tell what’s accurate.

Structure amplifies this gap between confidence and reality. Among organizations with centralized or consolidated SOCs, 98% report confidence. That sounds like a good sign. Until you remember that program structure is one of the strongest predictors of confidence regardless of how the program actually performs. Feeling organized isn’t the same as being effective.

Five questions to ask to properly measure SOC performance

If you want to move toward data-driven security operations — where performance is measured, not assumed — start here.

  1. What are our SLAs, and are they written down? Not “roughly” or “in someone’s head.” Create specific, documented targets for incident response time, alarm processing rate, and time to resolution. SLAs in security operations centers only work when they’re defined well enough to measure against; make sure everyone knows what they are.
  2. How often do we actually hit them? Remove the guesswork by pulling the data. If you can’t answer this question from a report, that’s your answer. A data-driven security program starts with tracking, not gut checks.
  3. What percentage of our daily alarms are false positives? According to our research, the industry average is 32.5% (and in our experience, can jump to as much as 90% false). At enterprise scale, it climbs to 44%. If your SOC doesn’t know its false alarm rate, operators are triaging noise without knowing how much of their shift is real work.
  4. What are our operators doing that automation could do instead? In our study, the top two tasks operators wanted to eliminate were manually triaging alarms (22%) and sending routine notifications and escalation emails (28%). Half your team’s bandwidth is going to work that shouldn’t require a human. Is yours?
  5. Where does our self-assessed maturity diverge from our SLA data? If you rate your physical security operations management at Level 3 or Level 4 but you’re only hitting SLAs occasionally, that’s the gap worth investigating. Maturity and performance aren’t the same thing, and this research proves it.

These five questions won’t fix anything by themselves. But they’ll tell you whether your confidence is grounded or whether you’re operating with the same blind spot we found across most SOCs in the industry.

The most effective programs aren’t working harder. They’re measuring what matters, supporting operators by automating what doesn’t need a human, and building data-driven security operations that keep pace with their scale.

That’s what closing the confidence gap actually looks like.

Where does your security program stand?

Download the full State of Physical Security Operations in 2026 report, including benchmark data on false alarm rates, AI adoption, SOC maturity levels, and SLA attainment across 300 security programs.

How to Develop a GSOC: From Business Case to Implementation

Posted on September 3, 2025 by - Industry Expertise, Tips & Tricks

Effectively monitoring, managing, and responding to security threats across multiple locations falls squarely on the shoulders of an organization’s global security operations center (GSOC).

At its most effective, a GSOC integrates intelligence from different sources to improve response during security incidents or emergencies and prevent them from even happening in the first place. They are essential for reducing risk to an organization, safeguarding assets and individuals, and staying informed about the security challenges across multiple locations.

But all of these things have to be done while maintaining operational efficiency and cost control, which means creating a SOC that leverages its technology to streamline the processes used to manage incidents.

Whether you’re a security leader evaluating your current capabilities or an executive considering strategic security investments, there are certain things to keep in mind when you’re building a GSOC. Here, we discuss what goes into this process, making a business case for it to leadership, and how to approach operational deployment.

The Business Case for GSOC Development

The decision to develop a GSOC isn’t made lightly. Organizations typically pursue this path when they recognize that their current security model – often a patchwork of regional solutions and disparate monitoring systems – no longer serves their evolving needs.

Modern GSOCs handle far more than just monitoring cameras and access points. They serve as comprehensive intelligence hubs that process data from human resources systems, access control platforms, video surveillance networks, security officer reports, supply chain oversight systems, and external sources, including law enforcement feeds, weather data, social media monitoring, and open source intelligence information.

Effective GSOCs typically provide the following:

  • 24/7/365 oversight: Unlike traditional security models that rely on local personnel or limited-hour monitoring, a properly developed GSOC provides continuous oversight across all organizational assets. This constant vigilance means that potential threats are identified and addressed immediately, regardless of time zones or local staffing constraints. The GSOC integrates with existing security infrastructure to ensure that no blind spots exist in coverage, creating a seamless security umbrella that protects people, assets, and operations around the clock.
  • Centralized incident response: A GSOC eliminates the confusion and delays that often plague decentralized response models by establishing clear command and control structures. Trained operators and analysts manage incoming alerts from identification through elevation to response, ensuring that the right resources are deployed quickly and effectively. This centralized approach also enables better communication with internal security personnel, external law enforcement, and other stakeholders during critical events.
  • Standardized security protocols: One of the most significant advantages of GSOC development is the ability to implement consistent security protocols across all locations. Rather than managing different procedures, technologies, and response models for each site, organizations can establish unified standards that ensure predictable, reliable security outcomes regardless of geographic location. This standardization extends to everything from access control procedures to emergency response protocols, creating organizational resilience that scales with growth.

GSOCs and Cost Optimization Benefits

While the initial investment in GSOC development can be substantial, the long-term financial benefits may typically far outweigh the upfront costs. Organizations see cost optimization across multiple dimensions of their security operations:

  • Reduced staffing redundancy across sites: A centralized GSOC model allows organizations to consolidate monitoring and response functions, reducing overall headcount while actually improving security coverage. Instead of maintaining separate security teams at each facility, organizations can deploy a smaller number of highly trained specialists who can oversee multiple locations simultaneously.
  • Lower total cost of security operations: Beyond staffing efficiencies, GSOCs drive down the total cost of security operations through economies of scale in technology procurement, maintenance, and management. Rather than purchasing and maintaining separate security systems for each location, organizations can leverage centralized platforms that serve multiple sites. This consolidation also reduces training costs, as personnel only need to master one set of systems and procedures rather than adapting to location-specific variations.

Building the Foundation: How to Develop a GSOC Infrastructure

Successful GSOC development requires careful attention to both technical and physical infrastructure elements. The foundation you build will determine not only your initial capabilities but also your ability to scale and adapt as organizational needs evolve.

The infrastructure development process begins with a thorough assessment of current security technologies and operational requirements. This assessment should encompass all existing systems, including video surveillance platforms, access control solutions, alarm systems, communication tools, and any specialized monitoring equipment. Understanding what you have and how it currently functions provides the baseline for determining what additional infrastructure elements you’ll need to develop.

Technology Stack Requirements

The technology backbone of your GSOC will determine its effectiveness and longevity. Modern GSOCs require sophisticated integration capabilities that can bring together disparate data sources into a unified platform. Your technology stack should be built around solutions that can ingest and correlate information from multiple sources while providing operators with intuitive interfaces for monitoring and response.

Some of the key technology components in a GSOC include:

Monitoring and visualization tools: Operator workstations require multiple display capabilities with customizable dashboards that can show everything from live video feeds to threat intelligence reports. The visualization layer should present complex information in easily digestible formats that enable quick decision-making.

Communication systems: A robust communication infrastructure ensures that GSOC operators can coordinate effectively with field personnel, law enforcement, and organizational leadership during incidents. This includes both routine operational communications and emergency notification systems.

Data management solutions: With the volume of information flowing through a modern GSOC, robust data management becomes critical. Storage, archival, and retrieval systems must be designed to handle both current operational needs and future regulatory or investigative requirements.

Security management platforms: In some cases, a modern GSOC leverages a security operations management platform that provides the bulk of the above, including monitoring tools, communications systems, and data ingestion capabilities that can help drive decision-making. Investing in a platform that also brings together multiple video surveillance and access control solutions can make a GSOC that much more effective, eliminating multiple management platforms that thwart incident response and are cumbersome for operators.

Physical Design Considerations

The physical environment of your GSOC plays a crucial role in operational effectiveness. Poor design can undermine even the most sophisticated technology infrastructure, while thoughtful planning creates an environment that enhances operator performance and organizational resilience. Some things to consider include:

  • Layout: The GSOC is designed and laid out to facilitate both individual operator efficiency and team coordination. Sight lines, acoustics, and workflow patterns all impact performance. Operators need clear views of shared displays while maintaining access to individual workstations. The layout should also account for different operational modes – normal operations may require one configuration, while crisis response might benefit from a more collaborative arrangement.
  • Lighting, flooring, and temperature controls: Lighting systems should be adjustable to maintain operator alertness across different shifts. Temperature and air quality controls become critical when operators spend extended periods in the facility. Even seemingly minor details, such as flooring materials, can impact operator comfort and fatigue levels during long shifts.
  • Redundancy: A GSOC represents a single point of failure for organizational security operations, making redundancy planning absolutely critical. Power systems should include uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) and backup generators capable of sustaining full operations for extended periods. Network connectivity requires multiple internet service providers and diverse routing paths to prevent communications outages.
  • Workstations: Individual operator workstations form the building blocks of GSOC effectiveness. Each position should be ergonomically designed to support extended operation periods while providing access to all necessary tools and information sources. Monitor configurations typically require multiple displays to accommodate different information streams – live video feeds, alarm panels, communication tools, and analytical dashboards all compete for screen real estate. The arrangement should allow operators to monitor multiple sources simultaneously while maintaining situational awareness of the broader operational picture.

A Phased Approach for GSOC Development

Developing a GSOC is a complex undertaking that benefits from a structured, phased approach. This methodology allows organizations to manage risk, control costs, and ensure that each phase builds effectively on previous accomplishments.

Phase 1: Strategy and Planning

The foundation of successful GSOC development lies in thorough planning and stakeholder alignment. This phase establishes the strategic direction, operational requirements, and resource commitments that will guide all subsequent development activities.

Stakeholder Alignment and Requirements Gathering

Effective GSOC development requires buy-in and input from stakeholders across the organization. Security leadership provides operational expertise and threat intelligence, but successful GSOCs also need support from facilities management, information technology, human resources, and executive leadership. Each stakeholder group brings different perspectives on requirements, constraints, and success criteria.

Requirements gathering should encompass both current operational needs and future growth projections. Consider not only the locations and assets that need protection today, but also planned expansion, changing threat landscapes, and evolving regulatory requirements. The requirements process should also identify integration points with existing systems and any constraints that might impact design decisions.

Technology Assessment and Vendor Selection

The technology assessment process evaluates current security infrastructure against GSOC requirements, identifying gaps that need to be addressed and opportunities for leveraging existing investments. This assessment should consider not only technical capabilities but also factors like vendor support, integration complexity, and long-term viability.

Vendor selection involves evaluating potential technology partners against both technical requirements and strategic considerations. Look for vendors with proven experience in GSOC deployments, strong integration capabilities, and a history of long-term stability. The selection process should also consider the total cost of ownership, including ongoing support and maintenance requirements.

Budget Allocation and Resource Planning

GSOC development requires significant upfront investment in technology, facilities, and personnel. Budget planning should account for both capital expenditures and ongoing operational costs, including items that might not be immediately obvious, like training programs, maintenance contracts, and facility modifications.

Resource planning extends beyond financial considerations to include personnel requirements, project timeline constraints, and organizational change management needs. Consider the impact of GSOC development on existing security operations and plan for any transition periods where both old and new systems might need to operate simultaneously.

Phase 2: Infrastructure Development

With planning complete, Phase 2 focuses on the physical implementation of GSOC infrastructure. This phase typically represents the most intensive period of development activity and requires careful project management to ensure that technology deployment, facility construction, and personnel preparation all proceed according to schedule.

Technology Deployment and Integration

Technology deployment should follow a carefully planned sequence that minimizes disruption to existing security operations while building toward full GSOC capability. Start with core infrastructure elements like network connectivity and basic monitoring platforms, then layer on additional capabilities as the foundation solidifies.

Integration planning becomes critical during this phase, as the GSOC must connect with numerous existing systems while preserving their individual functionality. Plan for extensive testing periods to ensure that integrations work as expected and don’t introduce unexpected vulnerabilities or operational issues.

Physical Space Construction and Setup

Physical facility development often proceeds in parallel with technology deployment, necessitating close coordination to ensure that infrastructure needs align with available space. Consider factors like power distribution, cooling requirements, and cable management during the construction phase to avoid costly modifications later.

The setup process should include extensive testing of all systems in their operational environment. This testing goes beyond simple functionality checks to include operational scenarios, emergency procedures, and integration between different system components.

Staff Recruitment and Training Programs

Personnel development represents one of the most challenging aspects of GSOC deployment. Recruiting qualified candidates requires specialized skills that may be in short supply, while training programs need to cover not only technical operations but also organizational procedures and emergency response protocols.

Training programs should be designed around the specific systems and procedures that your GSOC will use, rather than generic security operations content. Consider both initial training for new personnel and ongoing development programs to maintain skills and adapt to changing requirements.

Phase 3: Operations Launch

The transition from development to operations represents a critical milestone that requires careful management to ensure continuity of security coverage while bringing new capabilities online.

Pilot Operations and Testing

Pilot operations provide an opportunity to validate GSOC capabilities under real-world conditions while maintaining existing security operations as a backup. Start with a limited scope – perhaps covering a single location or specific types of incidents – and gradually expand coverage as confidence in the new capabilities grows.

Testing during pilot operations should encompass both routine operational scenarios and emergency response procedures. Document lessons learned and identify areas where procedures or systems need refinement before full deployment.

Process Refinement and Optimization

The early operational period typically reveals opportunities for process improvement that weren’t apparent during development. Use this period to refine procedures, optimize workflows, and address any integration issues that emerge under operational conditions.

Process refinement should be systematic rather than ad-hoc, with clear change management procedures that ensure modifications are properly tested and documented. Consider establishing regular review cycles to capture feedback from operators and stakeholders.

Full Operational Capability Achievement

The achievement of full operational capability represents the successful completion of GSOC development, but it should be viewed as the beginning of ongoing operational excellence rather than the end of the development process. Establish procedures for continuous improvement, regular system updates, and adaptation to changing organizational needs.

Next Steps

Developing a GSOC represents a significant commitment of resources and organizational energy, but the benefits – improved security effectiveness, operational efficiency, and cost optimization – make it a worthwhile investment for organizations with complex security requirements.

The key to success lies in approaching GSOC development as a strategic initiative rather than simply a technology project. This means investing in thorough planning, stakeholder alignment, and change management alongside infrastructure development. Organizations that take this comprehensive approach typically achieve better outcomes with fewer complications and lower total costs.

Whether you’re just beginning to consider GSOC development or are well into the planning process, remember that you don’t have to navigate this journey alone. Expert guidance can help you avoid common pitfalls, accelerate development timelines, and ensure that your GSOC delivers maximum value for your organization.

Ready to take the next step in your GSOC development journey? Find out about how technology can help your organization realize the value of a connected, strategic GSOC to achieve its physical security goals while optimizing operational efficiency and costs.

Doing More with Less: 3 Methods to Optimize Your Security Programs

Posted on January 12, 2025 by - Industry Expertise, Tips & Tricks

Here’s the deal.

Budgets are tightening or staying flat. The recent State of the Industry report from Genetec found that 34% of respondents said their budgets were going to remain flat, while 16% said they were expected to decline. This leaves security teams wondering how they can optimize their security programs while keeping budget considerations top of mind.

In our latest webinar, we were joined by Bobby Louissant, Head of Technical Partnerships, Global Security, at Meta; Rebecca Sherouse, Director of Account Management & Security Advisory, at HiveWatch; and Gerardo Iglesias, Director of Physical Security, at Molina Healthcare. The discussion was moderated by Jon Harris, Sr. Product Manager at HiveWatch.

The group talked about the current landscape in physical security, driven by the need to maximize and streamline existing investments and operations to meet budgetary demands being placed on the organization.

Here are three considerations you should make when optimizing your security program with budget constraints in mind:

Reducing Noise the Right Way

Posted on January 12, 2025 by - Industry Expertise, Tips & Tricks

“Noise” in a global security operations center (GSOC) refers to the numerous alarms coming in for operators to analyze and address. Amongst this “noise” are legitimate security alerts that need to be addressed immediately, crowded by completely false alarms triggered by faulty sensors, environmental factors (wind, rain, animals), and user error. When left unaddressed this noise problem can result in system overload, compromised security, high operator turnover, and complacency.