Steven J. Dana, CPP, SRMP-R

Executive/Dignitary/Victim-Witness Protection | Risk Management | Advanced Safety Planning | Victim Advocate | Threat Assessment & Management | Speaker | Instructor

As a security professional, I’ve learned that people — even experienced professionals — often misunderstand what safety truly means. And if we don’t start with a clear, operational definition of “safe,” we have no reliable way to evaluate or achieve it.

Thankfully, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) provides that clarity. It’s the lens I use when assessing safety for the clients we serve:

“Safety is freedom from risk which is not tolerable.” (ISO/IEC GUIDE 51:2014(E))

It’s a concise definition — but one with serious operational and legal consequences.

Safety is not a feeling, a guess, or a performance metric. Safety is a condition. One that depends entirely on whether risks have been properly identified, evaluated, and managed.

Simply put:

• If a risk hasn’t been identified, it cannot be managed.

• If you don’t understand your organization’s risk tolerance, you can’t intelligently prioritize and manage the risks that matter.

• Just because nothing bad has happened doesn’t mean risk isn’t present — or that safety has been achieved. It may simply mean the risk hasn’t materialized… yet.

• Risk tolerance is personal — and organization-specific. Some people are comfortable skydiving for fun; I wouldn’t jump from an airplane unless it was about to crash — and even then, I might need a nudge. Organizations are no different: what’s tolerable for one may be completely unacceptable for another.
  
  

Driving: A Simple Analogy for a Complex Risk

We all understand there’s inherent risk in driving — from fender benders to fatal collisions. Yet we accept that risk because it’s familiar, identifiable, and for most of us, tolerable.

We manage that risk through responsible behavior:

• ✅ Wearing seatbelts

• ✅ Obeying traffic laws

• ✅ Avoiding high-risk conditions

• ✅ Defensive driving

• ✅ Maintaining vehicles
  
  

That’s how safety is supposed to work:

1. Know the risk

2. Evaluate the risk

3. Determine if it’s tolerable

4. Manage accordingly

Now imagine driving a car with bald tires — but you don’t know they’re bald. You haven’t inspected them in months.

Then one rainy day, when traction matters most… You can’t stop in time.

You crash.

You were alert. You followed the rules. You drove responsibly. But were you safe?

No. Because you were exposed to a risk you hadn’t discovered.

No amount of good driving can compensate for a lack of traction — when the threat is hidden.

Why Methodical Risk Assessment Matters

Safety isn’t fully achieved by managing only what’s obvious. It requires a deliberate, structured search for risks that are:

• Hidden

• Emerging

• Context-dependent
  
  

Bald tires on a dry road might not matter — Until it rains.

You can’t be safe from what you don’t know. And no amount of staffing, training, or protocol will shield you from an unidentified risk.

This is where many organizations unintentionally leave themselves vulnerable:

They rely on legacy practices, past experience, or vendor-provided assurances — but they don’t conduct structured, standards-based risk assessments.

They feel secure — but have no real understanding of what risks they’re actually carrying. That’s not safety. That’s exposure.

For Professionals, the Stakes Are Higher

For corporate security leaders, general counsel, and risk executives, the risks may be more complex — but the principle is the same:

You are unlikely to achieve safety from a risk that hasn’t been identified or evaluated in context.

And when you get it wrong, the consequences can be catastrophic:

• ⚠️ Loss of life

• ⚠️ Reputational damage

• ⚠️ Financial loss

• ⚠️ Legal liability
  
  

Without regular, methodical, standards-aligned risk assessments, you may be operating on bald tires — unaware and unprepared.

Risk assessment doesn’t just help you spot the obvious. It helps reveal:

• The hidden

• The overlooked

• The emerging

• The context-dependent
  
  

More importantly, it gives you the framework to define: ✅ What risks your organization can tolerate 🚫 And which ones it cannot.

At Omnium, We Assess — We Don’t Guess

We help organizations:

• Gain clarity on the risks they face

• Define their actual risk tolerance

• Design security strategies aligned with operational and legal realities
  
  

Because safety is not a slogan. It’s a responsibility.

DM me or contact Omnium Protection Group to schedule a consultation.

If you haven’t assessed your risk, You’re not managing it. You’re just exposed to it.

👤 About the Author 

Steven J. Dana is a seasoned professional with over 30 years of experience in executive and dignitary protection and organizational risk management.

With a formal background in risk and liability, Steven bridges the gap between what looks secure and what actually protects. He currently serves as Director of Executive Security Programs at Omnium Protection Group, where he helps organizations assess risk and design protection strategies that align with legal and operational realities.