Your visitor management system screens thousands of guests a year. But when was the last time you screened the vendors behind it?
In a new article for Facilities Management Advisor, Jason Mordeno, Director of Compliance and Security at Sign In Solutions, makes the case that as threats evolve across physical, cyber, and hybrid domains, the vendors organisations trust with their security programme must be held to the same standard they hold themselves.
Mordeno outlines a practical framework for evaluating whether your current security and compliance vendors are genuine partners or potential liabilities:
Does your vendor offer their entire security and compliance programme as a set of living contractual requirements, or are you relying on static agreements that were current when you signed but may no longer reflect today's threat environment?
Is the vendor transparent about their security posture? Organisations should expect easy access to a public-facing library of up-to-date certifications and compliance qualifications, not a once-a-year audit report buried in a portal.
Does the system leverage validated, real-time threat intelligence databases, particularly for automated visitor prescreening? The difference between a reactive system and a proactive one often comes down to the quality and timeliness of the data feeding it.
Does the vendor provide a steady stream of new capabilities to stay ahead of evolving threats? Hybrid threats that move between physical and cyber domains require solutions that evolve just as quickly.
Does the vendor balance rigorous security with a friction-free, personalised visitor experience? Security that creates bottlenecks or frustration undermines adoption and, ultimately, the programme itself.
“The vendors you trust with your security programme should be held to the same standard you hold yourself,” Mordeno writes. For facility managers navigating an increasingly complex threat landscape, these five questions offer a clear starting point for that conversation.