Physical-security delivery is in development and is not currently available through DSE's website.
People, places, and systems belong in the same security plan.
A security incident can cross the boundary between a building, a business system, and the people making decisions. Planning should connect those responsibilities before an incident tests them.
The buyer problem
Facilities and technology teams can describe different parts of the same exposure. An access change, a missing device or an unclear reporting responsibility can create a gap between their plans. Connecting the plans starts with naming who owns the decision and what information they need.
Three connected domains
Cybersecurity addresses business systems, identities and information risk. Physical-security planning considers premises access and specialist responsibilities. AI governance addresses how AI is used, reviewed and controlled. Coordination does not replace the qualifications needed in each domain.
A hypothetical handoff
Imagine a business reports a missing laptop and an unexplained access-record entry. This is an illustrative scenario, not DSE client work. A planning discussion could identify who gathers the relevant information, who decides the next step and who maintains the incident record. It does not provide an emergency-response procedure or prescribe physical intervention.
What DSE offers today
Explore our cybersecurity services, AI security and governance work and incident-readiness planning. Each engagement has a confirmed scope and delivery responsibilities. These services do not establish an available physical-security offering.
The developing physical capability
We are exploring how specialist expertise could complement this work, with Atlanta and Georgia organizations in mind. Provider qualifications, capacity, service area and contractual roles remain to be confirmed. See our developing physical-security approach.
Proposed planning artifacts
A responsibility map could connect facilities, IT and leadership. A combined risk register could record shared exposures and unresolved questions. An escalation/contact map, exercise agenda and evidence checklist could make the agreed responsibilities inspectable. These are proposed planning artifacts; they are not included physical-service deliverables or an operational response promise.
Who would be responsible?
A future physical engagement would require a confirmed specialist provider, agreed scope and documented contractual roles. DSE's proposed brand role does not determine who holds the contract or performs physical work. The existing partner-enabled field-services reference brief describes a proposed delivery model, not an established physical-security provider or commitment.
Questions about this approach
Can I book physical delivery?
No. Physical-security delivery is in development and is not currently available through this website.
Does this include armed personnel?
DSE is not currently offering armed staffing through this website. Any future offering depends on a confirmed provider and the applicable qualifications and approvals.
Is AI responsible for physical protection?
No. AI's role here is governed analysis and documentation, with human responsibility. This approach does not offer automated threat decisions, biometric identification or use-of-force decisions.
Discuss your security requirements
Tell us about the business problem, the systems involved and the responsibilities you need to clarify. We will distinguish existing cyber/AI scope from questions for the developing physical approach.