Risk-Driven Security Operations Center Strategy Gains Ground Among Mid-Market Leaders

For mid-market organizations, the build-versus-buy debate around Security Operations Centers tends to focus on tools and vendors rather than strategy. But in practice, the real question is strategic: how security operations fit into the broader business. More security leaders are beginning to treat the SOC not as a product to purchase, but as an operational system that must align with organizational goals, risk ownership, and long-term resilience.

This is the perspective of David Pahlman, a seasoned cybersecurity executive who serves as the Director of Compliance and Technical Operations at the healthcare IT solutions company Ruvos. With top-tier industry certifications and a background shaped by over a decade as a Chief Information Officer, Pahlman puts risk at the center of the decision. “A SOC is not a product. It’s a system. If you’re going to do it right, you have to treat it like a department in the organization, with all the planning that entails," says Pahlman.

It’s a mindset that recognizes the systemic nature of a SOC and explains why canned solutions won't be a one-size-fits-all template for every business. A clear decision on whether to build, buy, or pursue a hybrid model emerges only after an organization honestly assesses its capabilities, budget, and long-term sustainability—that is, pursues a strategy. And, like any strategy, leaders must navigate a complex network of internal stakeholders and the overall maturity of internal security readiness.

• Picture perfect: Pahlman describes a framework of true risk ownership in which accountability aligns with financial control, and leaders are honest about their own biases. The decision to build, for instance, can be driven by an instinct for control that may not align with a risk-based strategy. "When you go through the risk assessment process and evaluate all the variations in cost and value, it will paint a very clear picture of which direction you should take." The value from an outsourced SOC, therefore, often reflects the client's own security maturity. A mature organization, even as they outsource certain functions or security coverage, takes an active role in that security. For example, such an organization would actively co-engineer intelligence with its provider, rather than passively consuming monthly reports.

• Reports without results: Pahlman learned this firsthand after finding a vendor’s reports lacked actionable insight. "I recently let go of an external SOC because the monthly reports they provided never contained the information I was expecting, and ultimately, I felt no value was gained from the service." His team took control, building their own detection rules on top of the provider's Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) infrastructure. This sophisticated human-AI hybrid model highlights how security must be woven into the fabric of technology strategy.

When organizations start taking a risk-informed look at their SOC function, most opt for outsourced or hybrid models due to the hidden costs of an internal build. These costs extend beyond software and hardware to include operational challenges such as staffing, sustainability, and the risk of analyst burnout. Pahlman points to often-overlooked burdens, such as log collection and storage costs, as well as the mandatory tooling needed to cut through alert noise.

• The 3 AM alert: Pahlman points out one such place where hidden costs pop up: incident response coverage. "While many leaders claim they only require nine-to-five coverage," he says, "the underlying expectation is typically 24/7. When an alert pops up at three in the morning, someone is going to expect action. You must own that reality from day one."

And while a security leader might be able to speak to technical and security experts, funding a SOC "department" often hinges on their ability to speak the board's language. An effective conversation frames the SOC in terms of business outcomes, directly linking its function to revenue protection, client requirements, and market position.

• From cost to client: What is the language that the board understands? Pahlman says that it's all about the bottom line. "Board members respond best when you frame the discussion around client requirements and the bottom line. Explain the business drivers, such as whether it's a regulatory requirement like PHI or CUI or a direct client mandate. When you can position the SOC as a value-add that strengthens client relationships, or even as a marketing tool, the investment resonates much better."

Once funding is secured, the next key question is governance. A common point of failure is confusion over who has the authority to respond to threats. Effective governance goes beyond a one-size-fits-all org chart, favoring a structure that reflects the business's specific risks and commitments and pinpointing points of accountability and ownership.

Ultimately, Pahlman explains that being "stuck in reactive mode" is a symptom of an underlying problem with the security program as a whole. A SIEM or SOC, he notes, cannot fix a reactive culture; instead, it merely exposes an existing issue. The insight suggests that a more effective approach is to focus on a holistic, adaptive security program from the ground up. "Just remember that almost everything originates from risk," Pahlman says. "If you truly own the risk management process, it provides a defensible process to follow and a framework for documenting the reasons behind the decisions you make."