F E A T U R E

and compliance requirements. They’ re both doing their jobs. Those jobs just aren’ t aligned.

This poor alignment has tangible consequences. A third of organisations report difficulty collaborating across teams, which means critical vulnerability information often gets lost between the groups responsible for identifying threats and those responsible for fixing them.

What happens when teams can’ t work together?

Clearly, communication breakdowns between security and IT create genuine security gaps. Competing priorities are the enemy of co-ordinated responses.

Take patch management – one of the most important shared responsibilities. Security teams identify vulnerabilities that require attention, but IT teams must balance those fixes against operational requirements, user impact and system dependencies. Without clear communication and shared understanding of risk context, patches get delayed, deprioritised or implemented in ways that don’ t adequately address the underlying threats.

The problems multiply during incident response. Threat detection might happen quickly, but containment and remediation slow down when teams work from different playbooks or question each other’ s assessments.

How risk-based frameworks can help

Security leaders can address this issue by establishing frameworks that enable both teams to assess risks in business terms. Rather than demanding IT teams‘ move faster’ on security issues, CISOs need to establish common ground for making decisions.

Risk-based methodologies offer a practical solution. When security and IT teams can evaluate vulnerabilities based on actual business impact – considering factors like asset criticality, exploit likelihood and potential downtime costs – they develop shared criteria for making decisions.

This transforms conversations from‘ security says this is critical’ versus‘ IT says this will break systems’ into collaborative discussions about acceptable risk levels and mitigation strategies that protect both security posture and operational stability.

How to build better working relationships

Productive partnerships between security and IT need structured processes for information sharing, regular cross-team communication and clear escalation procedures when disagreements arise.

That means consistent touchpoints with IT counterparts during routine operations, not just during crises. This includes joint vulnerability assessments, shared patch planning sessions and regular business risk reviews that align both perspectives.

The goal isn’ t eliminating all tension between security and IT priorities. Healthy disagreement often leads to better decisions. The objective is ensuring that tension serves the organisation rather than paralysing it.

David Shepherd, SVP EMEA, Ivanti

The benefits of better working relationships are significant, to say the very least. Patches get deployed more effectively, incidents get resolved more quickly and business leaders gain confidence that their technology infrastructure supports rather than hinders strategic objectives.

Strategies for more effective collaboration

Working together effectively as a security team is crucial for protecting an organisation. Here are some key strategies to foster better collaboration and performance.

Establish clear roles and responsibilities

Define the specific roles and duties for each team member. This prevents confusion and ensures all critical tasks are covered. When everyone knows their responsibilities, they can work more efficiently and accountability increases. This also helps to avoid duplication of effort.

Improve communication

Open and frequent communication is vital. Use collaborative platforms like Slack, Teams or dedicated project management tools to keep everyone updated. Regular team meetings – both formal and informal – can help share insights and discuss ongoing threats. A culture of psychological safety, where team members feel comfortable raising concerns without fear of criticism, is also essential.

36 www. intelligentdatacentres. com