For a long time, physical security lived quietly at the edges of enterprise strategy. Cameras, access control systems, and alarms were installed to meet compliance requirements, reduce risk, and respond when incidents occurred. They were essential, but rarely discussed beyond security teams—and almost never treated as a source of insight into how organisations actually operate.
That position is changing as facilities, infrastructure, and operations become more digitised, with physical security systems generating continuous streams of real-world data. What was once static infrastructure is now closely connected to IT environments, analytics platforms, and operational workflows. As a result, physical security is being reassessed not just for protection, but for what it reveals about efficiency, resilience, and decision-making.
These shifts are reflected in the Genetec 2026 State of the Physical Security Report, which captures how security, IT, and business leaders are rethinking the role of physical security inside the enterprise. Speaking to CXO Insight ME at Intersec, Andrew Elvish, Global Vice President of Marketing at Genetec, points to a clear change in how the industry frames its priorities.
“The conversations, the attendees, and the questions are fundamentally different,” he says. “Today, people are asking about resiliency, cloud adoption, cybersecurity best practices, compliance, and lifecycle management.”
The discussion has moved beyond devices and specifications. Physical security is increasingly evaluated alongside other enterprise systems, with expectations around integration, governance, and measurable outcomes.
From overhead to operational insight
One of the strongest signals in the Genetec’s latest report is how organisations now interpret the value of physical security data. Historically, security was treated as a necessary expense—something invested in to mitigate worst-case scenarios, rather than to actively improve how the organisation runs.
According to Elvish, this mindset has increasingly changed. “Technologies like Genetec Security Center and our Cloud Link appliances are no longer viewed just as protective tools,” he says. “They’re seen as sources of strategic advantage—ways to understand operations better.”
In practice, this means physical security data is no longer confined to security teams. It is increasingly shared across IT, HR, and analytics platforms, contributing to a broader understanding of how facilities, people, and processes interact.
This broader visibility has also changed who engages with security systems. Senior executives are now closer to the data than they were in the past.
“Today, executives want dashboards, Power BI reports, performance metrics, and visibility into how efficiently threats are handled,” Elvish explains. “We’re seeing CEOs—from airports to oil and gas—actively engaged in physical security data.”
The operational impact of this shift is particularly visible in investigations. As platforms become more unified and data more accessible, the time required to understand incidents has dropped sharply.
“Investigations that used to take four to twelve hours are now being completed in minutes,” Elvish says. “That kind of time savings is critical when dealing with executive threats, infrastructure risks, or incidents that attract investor and public scrutiny.”
As physical security becomes more integrated with enterprise systems, it increasingly functions as a practical lens into how organisations respond under pressure—how quickly they act, how coordinated their teams are, and where inefficiencies surface.
AI, cloud, and the question of control
The report also highlights growing tension around artificial intelligence. Interest in AI is strong, but confidence remains conditional.
“In our latest report, 70 percent of end-user respondents said they’re interested in AI—but majority of those also said they have serious concerns,” Elvish says.
Those concerns are rooted in accountability. Security and IT leaders remain responsible for outcomes, even when systems rely on automation. “CIOs and CSOs are accountable for AI-driven decisions, and that creates risk,” Elvish notes. “We’ve already seen legal cases where AI-powered systems made decisions that companies were held responsible for.”
As a result, many organisations are cautious about fully autonomous systems. There is growing preference for AI that supports human judgement rather than replacing it.
“AI supports decision-making, but humans remain in control,” Elvish says. “That’s why we use the term Intelligent Automation—automation surfaced clearly, with trained professionals deciding what action to take.”
Cloud adoption raises a parallel set of questions, particularly in regulated environments. According to Elvish, the report points to a strong and growing appetite for cloud deployment across the Gulf, especially in the UAE and Qatar, with Saudi Arabia not far behind. At the same time, physical security data introduces sensitivities that require careful architectural decisions.
“Data can remain on-site, fully sovereign, and disconnected from the internet, while still benefiting from cloud-based management and updates,” Elvish explains. “Our role is to support both, without compromising sovereignty.”
For many organisations, the challenge is not whether to adopt cloud or AI, but how to do so without losing control over critical systems and sensitive data.
Looking ahead, physical security is increasingly seen as a valuable source of insight into what is happening across facilities, how organisations respond to risk, and where operations can improve. The focus has shifted toward visibility, measurable outcomes, and control—using data to reduce investigation time, improve decision-making, and strengthen resilience. Whether through cloud architectures or AI-driven automation, the emphasis remains on transparency, human oversight, and practical impact. In that context, physical security is being evaluated not just for protection, but for the insight it brings into how organisations operate and perform.
Discussion about this post