When the utility is too small to sustain dedicated security staff, the priority should be external support that delivers assessment, deployment, and training together. For many under-resourced operators, the immediate problem is not choosing a perfect internal model, but getting any durable security capability into production.
When outside support makes more sense than a homegrown security team
For small or under-resourced utilities, outside support is usually the better first move when the core problem is capability, not headcount. If the organisation cannot staff assessment, deployment, monitoring, and training with enough depth to keep pace, external help can close the gap faster and with less execution risk than trying to build a full team from scratch.
The decision is not simply “buy vs build.” It is whether the utility needs a durable security function immediately, and whether internal hiring would delay that outcome. When the business still lacks basic security coverage, a service that combines assessment, implementation, and operator training is often the shortest path to a safer operating model.
A useful way to frame the choice is by operating burden. Internal teams work best when the utility already has enough scale to absorb ongoing governance, tooling, and response duties. Outside support works best when the utility needs steady improvement but cannot yet justify full-time specialists for every required function. In that case, the external partner supplies both execution capacity and a repeatable operating pattern.
What outside support should actually deliver
Good outside support is more than advice. It should help the utility identify its most exposed assets, deploy practical controls, and transfer enough knowledge that the staff can sustain the baseline after the engagement. That includes hardening remote access, improving account handling, tightening configuration, and translating findings into work the operations team can maintain.
Building Management System Security Guide is a useful reference when the utility’s environment includes building automation, HVAC, access control, or other operational technology that often sits outside traditional IT team coverage. For utilities with exposed industrial or facility systems, outside help should reduce integration risk, not just produce a report.
External support is strongest when it leaves behind clearer ownership, better configuration standards, and a workable escalation path. If a provider only points out gaps but does not help deploy controls or train operators, the utility may still remain exposed. The right test is whether the engagement changes day-to-day security behaviour, not just whether it improves documentation.
How to decide whether to build internally later
Internal security teams become more attractive once the utility has enough scale, funding, and operational maturity to retain people and keep them effective. At that point, the organisation usually needs continuous governance, recurring review, and closer alignment between security and operations than a temporary external model can provide.
The transition point is usually visible in the workload. If the utility can justify dedicated ownership for risk management, control maintenance, and incident response, internal capability starts to make sense. If not, the organisation should avoid creating a partial team that is responsible for critical outcomes but lacks the authority or time to deliver them.
NERC CIP Guide is relevant where the utility must align security work with regulatory obligations, remote access controls, and audit readiness. That kind of environment often pushes the organisation toward stronger internal ownership over time, but only after the basic security programme is stable enough to support it.
Where utilities go wrong when they choose the wrong model
The most common mistake is building a security team before the utility has enough process maturity to support it. That produces an isolated function with limited reach, slow remediation, and unclear ownership. The opposite mistake is relying on outside support for too long without building internal accountability, which can leave the utility dependent on consultants for routine decisions.
Another common failure is treating the choice as permanent. In practice, many utilities need a staged model: external support first, then selective internalisation of the functions that matter most, and finally a smaller outside role focused on specialist advice or surge capacity. That sequencing is usually safer than trying to hire a fully formed team too early.
TPRM and Security Ratings Buyer’s Guide helps when the utility depends on outside providers and needs to judge whether a vendor can actually deliver useful security outcomes. A provider should be evaluated on depth of delivery, not just on reputation or a checklist of services.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
CIS Controls v8 and NIST CSF 2.0 set the technical controls, while ISO/IEC 27001:2022 defines the regulatory obligations.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| CIS Controls v8 | CIS-5 — Account Management | Utilities need practical control coverage for accounts and access when deciding build vs buy. |
| Recommendation — Use CIS-5 to standardise account ownership and lifecycle before moving work in-house. | ||
| NIST CSF 2.0 | GV.RM-01 — Risk Management Strategy is Established and Maintained | The question is fundamentally a resourcing and security-risk tradeoff for the utility. |
| Recommendation — Set a risk-based threshold for when internal security capability becomes justified. | ||
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | A.5.15 — Access control | Outside support must improve access control practices when internal capacity is thin. |
| Recommendation — Apply A.5.15 to define and enforce access rules as capability matures. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
What to prioritise: Put immediate operational coverage ahead of organisational preference. If the utility cannot sustain even a minimal security function internally, prioritise a provider that can assess risk, deploy controls, and train staff together.
What to verify: Confirm that the external model includes transfer of knowledge, not just deliverables. The utility should be able to explain who owns each control, how exceptions are handled, and what happens when the provider is no longer involved.
Decision rule: If the utility is still struggling to keep basic controls working, choose outside support. If it can retain skilled staff, maintain governance, and continuously improve controls, start shifting the higher-value recurring work inside.
Practitioner takeaway: The right answer is usually the model that creates durable security capability fastest, not the model that looks most self-sufficient on paper.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- How should security teams prioritise NHI remediation in cloud environments?
- When should security teams prioritise internal candidates over external hiring for cloud security roles?
- When should security teams prioritise third-party risk management over internal control tuning?
- When should organisations prioritise managed IT support over building more internal IT capacity?