CIOs haven’t suddenly developed an appetite for badge readers and camera feeds. They’ve inherited them out of necessity.
For decades, physical security systems lived at the edge of the enterprise. Cameras, badge readers and intrusion alarms were typically deployed and managed by facilities or security teams, operating largely in isolation from core IT infrastructure.
That boundary no longer exists.
According to Greyhound Research, the growing involvement of IT teams in physical security is not the result of a strategic power shift. It is a forced response to how deeply connected these systems have become to enterprise networks, cloud platforms and compliance frameworks.
“CIOs haven’t suddenly developed an appetite for badge readers and camera feeds,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, Chief Analyst at Greyhound Research. “They’ve inherited them out of necessity.”
Connectivity pulled physical security into IT’s orbit
The turning point, according to Greyhound, was connectivity. What were once closed, analog systems have evolved into IP-based platforms that sit directly on corporate networks and, increasingly, in public cloud environments.
Video surveillance systems are now cloud-managed. Access control platforms integrate with identity and access management (IAM) systems. Physical security data is stored, processed and shared in ways that expose enterprises to the same regulatory, privacy and cybersecurity risks as traditional IT systems.
That has made physical security impossible for CIOs to ignore.
“We’re seeing real-world cases where camera footage is stored offshore, violating data residency laws,” Gogia said. “Or badge systems that remain active for ex-employees because they weren’t linked to the HR offboarding process. These aren’t edge cases. They’re common.”
In such scenarios, physical security becomes a liability rather than a protective layer. Boards and auditors increasingly expect IT leadership to account for surveillance risks, access governance and compliance exposure. When those questions surface, ownership follows.
“If you can’t answer those questions,” Gogia said, “you’re not really running enterprise risk anymore.”
The collapse of the cyber-physical boundary
Greyhound’s research suggests that the distinction between cyber and physical security is no longer operationally meaningful. Attackers do not differentiate between digital and physical entry points, and neither do regulators.
“The operational boundary between cyber and physical has collapsed,” Gogia said. “Attackers don’t care which door they use.”
This convergence has pushed physical security into the same governance frameworks that already exist for IT systems. CIOs are being held accountable for risks originating from cameras, access control platforms and sensor networks, regardless of who historically managed them.
From Greyhound’s perspective, IT ownership of physical security is not about control. It is about self-defence.
“It’s not a power grab,” Gogia said. “It’s a response to exposure.”
A different way of evaluating security projects
Once IT takes ownership, the way physical security projects are evaluated changes fundamentally.
According to Greyhound Research, the conversation shifts away from device counts and coverage maps toward architecture, integration and resilience. The questions CIOs ask are no longer about where cameras are placed, but about how data moves through the enterprise.
“Facilities teams talk coverage angles,” Gogia said. “IT talks authentication protocols.”
This shift has wide-ranging implications for vendors and system integrators. In IT-led deployments, basic hardware performance is no longer sufficient. Systems must fit into broader enterprise architectures.
Published APIs become mandatory. Access control systems must integrate with Active Directory or enterprise IAM platforms. Cloud services must offer documented failover and disaster recovery capabilities. Procurement teams expect service-level agreements, not just warranties. Compliance teams demand audit trails rather than raw storage capacity.
“In an IT-led model, you can’t approve a system that doesn’t integrate,” Gogia said. “If it doesn’t fit into the ecosystem, it doesn’t survive.”
Compliance and governance now drive buying decisions
Greyhound notes that compliance considerations increasingly outweigh traditional hardware specifications in buying decisions. Vendors that lead on imaging performance or device durability may find themselves excluded if they lack mature security governance processes.
Secure firmware update mechanisms, vulnerability disclosure programs and certifications such as SOC 2 are becoming table stakes in IT-owned environments.
Physical security vendors are being evaluated alongside enterprise software providers, not compared only to their peers in the surveillance market.
“This is where we see disconnects,” Gogia said. “A vendor might be best-in-class on hardware, but if they don’t have a secure update process or can’t demonstrate compliance readiness, they’re out.”
For integrators, this changes the competitive landscape. Winning a project increasingly depends on demonstrating architectural competence and governance awareness, not just installation expertise.
Operational expectations are rising
IT ownership also changes how systems are expected to operate after deployment.
Traditional physical security models relied heavily on on-site maintenance and reactive service calls. IT teams, by contrast, expect real-time visibility into system health, remote diagnostics and rapid remediation.
“They want dashboards, version control, and the ability to patch vulnerabilities in hours,” Gogia said. “Not weeks.”
This expectation forces both vendors and integrators to adapt. Security platforms are no longer static installations. They are operational systems that require continuous monitoring, tuning and lifecycle management.
“You’re not just deploying infrastructure anymore,” Gogia said. “You’re onboarding a system into an ecosystem with real dependencies.”
In practice, this means integrators are increasingly expected to support ongoing optimization, not just initial commissioning. Performance tuning, policy updates and integration maintenance become part of the service model.
New risks emerge alongside new efficiencies
While IT ownership can improve governance and visibility, Greyhound cautions that it also introduces new risks if not managed carefully.
Physical security systems have real-world consequences that differ from traditional IT assets. A misconfigured firewall may cause downtime. A misconfigured access control system can lock employees out or compromise safety.
Treating physical security purely as an IT platform without understanding operational realities can create blind spots.
“The risk is assuming that IT best practices automatically translate,” Gogia said. “They don’t always.”
Successful deployments require collaboration between IT, security and facilities teams. Greyhound’s research shows that failures often occur when physical security expertise is sidelined rather than integrated into the new governance model.
What this means for system integrators
For system integrators, the shift toward IT ownership represents both a threat and an opportunity.
Integrators who continue to position themselves primarily as installers risk being marginalized. Those who can translate operational requirements into technical architectures stand to gain influence earlier in the project lifecycle.
Greyhound argues that integrators must evolve in three key areas: understanding enterprise IT architectures, engaging in workflow and policy design, and supporting systems over their operational lifespan.
“The integrator who only knows cameras will struggle,” Gogia said. “The integrator who understands how security fits into enterprise operations will win.”
This evolution also affects commercial models. Managed services, continuous optimization and advisory roles become more important as projects move away from one-time deployments.
A structural shift, not a passing trend
Greyhound Research does not view IT ownership of physical security as a temporary phase. The forces driving it, connectivity, compliance, and risk consolidation, are structural.
As physical systems generate more data and integrate more deeply with enterprise platforms, CIO involvement will continue to grow. For vendors and integrators, adapting to this reality is no longer optional.
“This shift wasn’t planned,” Gogia said. “But it’s not reversible either.”
For the physical security industry, the question is no longer whether IT will be involved, but how effectively stakeholders adapt to a world where physical security is governed, evaluated and operated like any other enterprise system.