Brutalist Security Meets Team of Teams: Part 2 - Who Should Use It

(Part 2 of 5)

This approach, which integrates the principles of Security Brutalism with the Team of Teams methodology, is particularly effective for organizations that exhibit specific characteristics—such as operational complexity, rapid growth, and a need for agility in the face of evolving security threats. These organizations often benefit from decentralized structures and cross-functional collaboration, making them well-positioned to adopt a model that emphasizes both transparency and accountability in security practices.

However, this method is not universally applicable. Organizations with highly centralized decision-making, rigid hierarchies, or low tolerance for autonomous operations may find it challenging to implement both components effectively. That said, Security Brutalism on its own, emphasizing simplicity, clarity, and enforcement of baseline security practices, can still provide significant value as a standalone framework, even outside the broader Team of Teams model.

Who is it suited for?

Ideal Organizational Characteristics

• Complex and Distributed Environments: Organizations with multiple product lines, business units, or geographically dispersed teams can benefit from the decentralized nature of Team of Teams and the consistently applied security of Security Brutalism.
• Rapid Growth and Scaling: The Team of Teams model is inherently scalable, and embedding security responsibilities within each autonomous unit allows security to scale more effectively alongside organizational growth.
• Agile and DevOps Culture: Organizations embracing agile and DevOps practices can integrate the Security Brutalism principles into their existing workflows through empowered teams and automated security controls (DevSecOps).
• High-Value Assets and Significant Security Risks: Companies dealing with sensitive data, critical infrastructure, or facing a high threat landscape will find the robust and uncompromising nature of Security Brutalism particularly valuable in mitigating risks.
• Desire for Strong Security Culture: This methodology fosters a sense of shared responsibility for security across all teams, contributing to a stronger overall security culture compared to a centralized, siloed security approach.
• Willingness to Embrace Foundational Security: Organizations that understand the long-term benefits of strong, sometimes initially less user-friendly, security controls will be more receptive to the Security Brutalism philosophy.
• Commitment to Collaboration and Communication: The Team of Teams model thrives on effective communication and collaboration, which is also crucial for the successful implementation of a distributed security approach.

Organizations Facing Specific Challenges

• Inconsistent Security Practices Across Teams: If different teams within an organization have varying levels of security maturity and inconsistent practices, this methodology can help establish a baseline of strong security across the board.
• Slow Security Response Times: Empowered teams with security ownership can react more quickly to threats and vulnerabilities within their domains compared to relying solely on a central security team.
• Security Bottlenecks: A centralized security team can become a bottleneck. Distributing security responsibilities can alleviate this and allow for more parallel security efforts.
• Difficulty Scaling Security Efforts: As the organization grows, a centralized security team may struggle to keep pace. Embedding security within each team provides a more scalable solution.
• Lack of Security Ownership by Development Teams: This approach encourages development teams to take greater ownership of the security of their products and services.

Organizations That Might Find This Methodology Less Ideal (or Requiring Significant Adaptation)

• Small, Highly Centralized Organizations: In very small organizations with a flat structure and direct oversight, the overhead of establishing security champions and formal guilds might outweigh the benefits. A more direct security approach might be sufficient.
• Organizations with a Very Low Threat Profile: If an organization operates in an environment with minimal security risks and handles non-sensitive data, the rigor of Security Brutalism might be perceived as excessive.
• Organizations with a Highly Regulated and Compliance-Driven Security Posture (Without Flexibility): While Security Brutalism can support compliance, organizations with extremely rigid, top-down compliance requirements might find the decentralized nature of Team of Teams challenging to integrate without careful planning.
• Organizations with a Strong Resistance to Change or Collaboration: Implementing both Security Brutalism (potentially introducing initial friction) and Team of Teams (requiring significant shifts in organizational structure and communication) requires a willingness to adapt and collaborate.

To Close

The integrated Security Brutalism and Team of Teams approach is especially effective for large, scaling, and complex organizations that prioritize agility and face heightened security challenges. These are typically organizations that not only understand the importance of building a resilient and transparent security foundation, but also strive to maintain the speed, innovation, and autonomy of their teams. They value decentralized decision-making and recognize that embedding strong security principles across distributed teams is essential to sustaining both growth and trust in dynamic environments.

Next Part 3.