In safety- and security-critical environments, progress is often judged by what is most visible, not what’s most operationally ready. Even as more than half of organizations have increased security spending, buying solutions before defining operational needs often leads to systems that look strong on paper but underperform in practice.
In this edition of The Better Question, Travis Lishok, senior security development manager, breaks down why this disconnect occurs and how agencies can shift to a planning-first approach that yields measurable outcomes.
Myth: “Buying emerging safety and security technology is the quickest way to improve system performance.”
Where did this idea come from, and why does it stick?
Technology decisions often evolve under tight timelines, shifting regulatory expectations and pressure to demonstrate visible progress. What I see most often is not a lack of intent but a mismatch between how a system is expected to perform and how it will actually be operated, maintained and governed day to day. Across agencies, planning processes and integration requirements can vary widely, which means some teams inherit tools or systems procured with the best intentions, but without full alignment with operational realities or the people responsible for implementation.
Over time, this approach reinforces the perception that technology (especially something new) can be fast-tracked with less emphasis on coordination, readiness and foundational planning. The outcome is often a fragmented approach, where systems are expected to “sprint” before the organization has been given the opportunity to crawl and walk. When that happens, technology becomes a visible symbol of progress but not a reliable driver of performance.
What does the actual evidence tell us?
True safety and security emerges from a holistic understanding of risk. In practice, that means looking beyond individual tools and understanding how regulations, operations, people and systems interact under real-world conditions. This spans federal safety regulations, operational readiness, hazard mitigation and resilience planning. Strong programs consistently begin with:
- Understanding existing conditions, based on feedback across executive, technology and operational teams
- Assessing the needs of the organization
- Identifying high ROI opportunities for improvement
- Researching, vetting and testing solutions against vendor claims
- Mapping out how technologies will interface with users, potential implementation risks and awareness of technical debt
Technology is an enabler, not a one-click solution. Without foundational planning, even the most advanced platforms risk becoming siloed tools that introduce new challenges instead of resolving existing ones.
How has STV evolved its approach as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and other emerging technologies have become more prominent in safety and security planning?
As AI‑enabled tools and automation platforms gain visibility, many organizations are understandably eager to explore how these technologies might enhance safety, security and operational performance. AI holds real promise, but like previous waves of “must have” technology, its value depends entirely on context, governance and readiness. From my perspective, the risk isn’t adapting AI too slowly – it’s adopting it without clearly defining where it adds value and where human judgment must remain central.
Meaningful impact occurs only when these tools support a well-defined framework, and when the risks of implementation are weighed as carefully as the promise of productivity.
What does that look like when put into practice?
In our work, we’ve found that a planning-first approach allows emerging tools, including AI, to be adopted thoughtfully, safely and in alignment with organizational needs. Before discussing specific technology solutions, we focus on clarifying regulatory requirements, establishing governance and pressure-testing assumptions in the field before long-term commitments are made.
While agencies explore where emerging technologies fit within their broader safety and security workflows, what question should they be asking?
Instead of asking:
“How quickly can we deploy this cutting-edge tool to demonstrate our modernized system?”
The better question is:
“What challenge are we solving and what planning is required to deliver on the aspirations of our agency?
Find out more about how STV’s Safety and Security team helps clients move from technology adoption to an integrated, resilient system safety rooted in planning, reliability and long-term performance.
