Audits & governance
Connect each finding to its evidence, requirement and responsible owner. Give reviewers a clear record of what has been checked and what remains open.
SNE Security Score
Understand security.
Make better business decisions.
A structured methodology for assessing physical security, comparing evidence and directing investment. Built for businesses, buildings, offices, data centres and property portfolios.
Discuss a pilot assessmentMethodology in pilot development
Built around the decision
Turn security information
into a business advantage.
The aim is a defensible assessment that owners, directors and advisers can use. The value lies in the evidence, the context and the action it supports.
Capital investment
Separate urgent control gaps from future improvements. Build a reasoned security investment plan with priorities, dependencies and indicative costs where available.
Acquisitions & takeovers
Identify security weaknesses, ageing systems and likely remediation needs before taking responsibility for a business or property.
Business & asset valuations
Give valuation and transaction advisers documented security findings, operational dependencies and potential future expenditure to consider in their analysis.
Insurance risk discussions
Provide brokers, insurers and risk advisers with structured evidence about safeguards, maintenance and outstanding exposures to inform their own risk calculations.
Portfolio comparison
Use a common assessment structure to review comparable sites, explain differences and track improvement through subsequent assessments.
A profile with an evidence trail
A useful score explains
what sits behind it.
The proposed headline measure runs from 0 to 100 and summarises verified control assurance within an agreed scope. It sits alongside domain results, evidence coverage, risk findings and an improvement plan.
Missing information is recorded as unverified. An overall pilot score is released only when all applicable controls have a verified rating, exclusions have been reviewed and scoring conflicts are resolved.
A serious control failure remains visible even when other areas perform well.
The proposed assessment package
- An executive summary of the decisions that matter
- A security profile across eight assessment domains
- Findings linked to dated evidence and stated limitations
- A risk register with critical issues clearly identified
- A prioritised action and investment plan
- A baseline for future review and comparison
The working methodology
A consistent process.
A site specific assessment.
The method connects the environment, its controls, the evidence and the business consequences. The current pilot framework uses eight connected domains.
Perimeter & building
Boundaries, lighting, physical protection and the environment around the site.
Access & protected assets
People, visitors, permissions, restricted areas and the assets that matter most.
CCTV & recorded evidence
Coverage, image usefulness, recording, retention and reliable retrieval.
Detection & response
Intrusion detection, alarm handling, escalation and the response that follows.
Integration & resilience
Interfaces, power, networks, maintenance, recovery and system dependencies.
People & procedures
Staff awareness, operating routines, incident readiness and assigned responsibilities.
Security system cyber hygiene
Administration, remote access, software support and handling of security information.
Governance & obligations
Risk ownership, relevant requirements, records, review cycles and follow through.
- Step 1
Define the environment
Agree the assets, business objectives, relevant requirements, review period and site boundaries. A data centre and an office need different control requirements.
- Step 2
Collect and verify evidence
Link records, observations and authorised test results to each control. Distinguish verified findings from client reports, assumptions and information that is unavailable.
- Step 3
Assess controls and consequences
Apply documented rating criteria, record evidence coverage and assess the relevant risk scenarios separately. Critical gaps stay prominent regardless of an average.
- Step 4
Plan action and review progress
Connect findings to treatments, owners and review dates. Repeat the assessment on a consistent basis to establish what has changed and what still needs attention.
Meaningful comparison
Compare on a basis
you can explain.
An office, warehouse and data centre can share a common assessment structure while having very different security needs. Their totals only become useful comparisons when the scope and evidence support it.
Make the comparison fair
Record the method version, applicable controls, assessment period, evidence coverage and operating context. Compare similar environments or matched domains, and explain material differences.
Separate improvement from uncertainty
A higher score should reflect stronger verified controls. Better documentation, a changed scope or newly available evidence must be visible so the reason for a change is understood.
Build benchmarks through evidence
Pilots will test rating consistency and repeatability. Sector benchmarks and performance bands require sufficient comparable data before they can be offered.
Pilot development
Help shape a method
worth using.
We welcome pilot discussions with asset owners, facilities teams, engineering consultancies and professional advisers. Scope, fees, field verification and information use are agreed before an assessment begins.
The framework is being developed and calibrated. It is not an accredited certification, a validated industry benchmark or a prediction of loss. Findings can inform audit, valuation and insurance decisions; acceptance and calculations remain with the relevant auditor, adviser or insurer.
Any use of client information to develop the methodology requires separate agreement.
Start with your business question
What would a clearer security picture help you decide?
Tell us about the site, portfolio or transaction and the decision you need to make. We’ll discuss whether a pilot assessment is a useful fit.