Threading the Needle: How Security Operations Powers a Genuine Zero Trust Journey
Not so long ago, my caffeine-fueled mornings would start with wrestling Wi-Fi printers before delving into yet another security workshop. On one especially memorable day, someone’s cat triggered a false network alert – convincing half the team that we were under attack. None of those classical zero trust diagrams prepared me for moments like these. Security operations isn’t just another box to tick—it’s the unsung engine powering a real Zero Trust strategy. If you’ve ever wondered how to pull off a zero trust journey that survives contact with real people (and their cats), this post is for you.
Reality Check: Blending Security Operations with Zero Trust Ideals
When we talk about the Zero Trust security model, the conversation often revolves around its six core pillars—identity, devices, applications, data, infrastructure, and networks. But let’s be honest: in the real world, threats don’t politely organize themselves to fit our architectural diagrams. That’s where security operations steps in, not as a supporting actor, but as the thread that holds the entire Zero Trust tapestry together.
Security operations is often overlooked as a ‘pillar’ in the Zero Trust framework. Yet, its role is nothing short of foundational. As Lexi Faucon Letterman, Senior Product Manager at Microsoft, puts it, “Threat protection and response capabilities must be interwoven across all these pillars to ensure a resilient security posture.” This isn’t just theory—it’s the reality every security team faces daily.
Security Operations: The Unseen Backbone
If you’ve ever been on the receiving end of a 2 a.m. alert, you know that security operations isn’t just about monitoring dashboards. It’s about actively responding to incidents, adapting to new threats, and ensuring that the Zero Trust principles of “never trust, always verify” are enforced at every layer. Research shows that security operations is not just supportive; it’s the backbone that enables organizations to apply Zero Trust principles in real time.
I’ve learned this the hard way. There was a time when a simple coffee spill on my keyboard triggered a Defender alert—an embarrassing moment, but a perfect reminder that real-world operations are messy. Threats rarely wait for a convenient time or fit neatly into our plans. Our security operations teams must be flexible and ready to act, blending technical expertise with practical, on-the-ground awareness.
Microsoft’s Approach: Elevating Security Operations
Recognizing the critical role of security operations, Microsoft has taken a bold step by dedicating a full workshop pillar to it in their Zero Trust Workshop. This is a significant shift from the traditional six-pillar model, and it reflects a growing industry understanding: theory alone isn’t enough. We need actionable, operational guidance that addresses the unpredictable nature of modern threats.
The workshop structure now separates architectural theory from the nuts-and-bolts of deployment and incident response. This approach helps organizations move beyond checklists and PowerPoint slides, focusing instead on building resilient, adaptive security operations that can handle whatever comes their way.
Threat protection and response capabilities must be interwoven across all these pillars to ensure a resilient security posture.
Zero Trust Workshop: Pillars and Structure
Ultimately, security operations is more than a checkbox in the Zero Trust journey. It’s the living, breathing force that powers genuine threat protection and response, ensuring that Zero Trust principles aren’t just aspirations—they’re reality, every day.
Putting Workshop Practice Before Perfection: Teams, Roles, and Realities
When it comes to Zero Trust adoption, there’s a temptation to chase the “perfect” workshop formula. In reality, running a successful Zero Trust workshop is more like improv than a scripted performance. Every organization brings its own mix of personalities, priorities, and pain points. As a facilitator, I’ve learned that flexibility is not just helpful—it’s essential.
Let’s start with the basics: security team roles are as diverse as the organizations they protect. Some enterprises have sprawling, specialized departments. Others rely on a handful of people wearing multiple hats, juggling everything from incident response to compliance. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach. That’s why workshop logistics must be tailored to fit the team’s structure, maturity, and current challenges.
Our experience delivering these workshops is that the workshop itself sparks a lot of valuable conversations, including some real lightbulb moments.
I’ve seen firsthand how the right mix of participants can turn a routine session into a catalyst for change. It’s not just about having technical specialists in the room. You need IT managers, SecOps managers, hands-on practitioners, and—crucially—leadership. Research shows that leadership participation is vital for Zero Trust buy-in. Without it, even the best ideas can stall before they get off the ground.
Including leadership isn’t just a courtesy. It’s a strategic necessity. When leaders engage directly, they see the realities their teams face and are more likely to champion the changes that Zero Trust demands. This is especially important because Zero Trust adoption is a journey, not a one-time event. It requires ongoing support, prioritization, and the willingness to do things differently.
The facilitator’s role is to balance technical deep dives with high-level strategy. Some teams want to focus on identity protection; others are wrestling with endpoint security or cloud integration. It’s my job to meet them where they are, not force them through a rigid agenda. For example, if a team has already rolled out Defender for Identity, we might skip that topic and spend more time on areas where they’re still building capability.
Here’s a practical look at how I structure Zero Trust workshops based on team needs and logistics:
Security teams might be a large, specialized department or a small group of individuals wearing multiple hats … We need participation from multiple members of the security team, including the specialists … and leadership to join if possible.
The bottom line? The workshop’s success hinges on dynamic interaction and participant diversity. It’s not about perfection—it’s about creating space for honest conversation, surfacing real challenges, and building trust across roles. That’s how you thread the needle and power a genuine Zero Trust journey.
Mapping Progress, Not Just Boxes: Workshop Tools and Scoring Nuances
When it comes to building a meaningful Zero Trust roadmap, I’ve learned that mapping progress is far more nuanced than simply checking boxes. Every organization’s journey is unique—some customers arrive with Microsoft Defender for Identity already in place, while others rely on third-party endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions like CrowdStrike or Palo Alto. The Zero Trust workshop is designed to meet customers where they are, adapting to their current security landscape rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all approach.
Central to this process is the workshop spreadsheet. Before I even join the official call with a customer, I make it a point to open the spreadsheet and click through the dropdown menus. This isn’t just a matter of preparation—it’s about understanding the full range of status options available for tracking Zero Trust progress. The dropdowns include:
Planned: The customer hasn’t started deployment yet, but it’s on the roadmap.
In Progress: Deployment has begun—momentum is building.
Third Party: The organization is using a non-Microsoft solution for this control.
Follow-up: More information or support is needed before moving forward.
These status options do more than just track tasks—they provide a living snapshot of where the organization stands and where attention is needed. “Each recommendation has an implementation effort, which measures how much work security teams need to do to deploy a feature or control, and a user impact score, which measures how much the change affects end users, especially nonprivileged ones.” This dual scoring system is critical. It brings transparency to every recommendation, making it clear not just what needs to be done, but how much it will cost in terms of both effort and user disruption.
I’ve seen firsthand how this approach clarifies organizational priorities and pain points. For example, a high-impact, low-effort recommendation often becomes a quick win, while high-effort, high-user-impact items spark deeper discussions about timing and change management. Research shows that personalized scoring like this fosters trust with stakeholders, as it demonstrates that their unique business needs and constraints are being considered—not just generic best practices.
What I appreciate most about this system is how it helps avoid the classic “configuration rabbit holes.” Instead of getting bogged down in technical minutiae, the scorecard keeps the focus on actionable progress. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds when implementing Zero Trust, but the workshop’s structured scoring ensures that every step is purposeful and measurable.
There’s also an element of discovery. More than once, I’ve seen the workshop scorecards reveal hidden security gaps that weren’t surfaced during initial interviews. Sometimes, a control marked as “In Progress” turns out to be only partially deployed, or a “Third Party” solution isn’t providing the coverage everyone assumed. These insights are invaluable for shaping a realistic and effective Zero Trust roadmap.
Ultimately, the combination of status tracking, implementation effort, and user impact scores transforms the Zero Trust workshop from a checklist exercise into a dynamic, transparent, and genuinely collaborative journey.
When the Cat Jumps on the Keyboard: Adapting to Surprises and Securing Follow-Through
Anyone who’s run a Zero Trust workshop knows the reality: no matter how carefully you plan, something unexpected will happen. Maybe it’s a cat leaping onto the keyboard mid-demo, a sudden technical glitch, or an urgent security alert that pulls half the team away. These moments aren’t just anecdotes—they’re reminders that flexibility is more valuable than rigidity when it comes to Zero Trust delivery and workshop logistics.
Over the years, I’ve learned that the best follow-up strategies are built for these surprises. Instead of letting unplanned events derail progress, I use a simple ‘Follow-up’ status to turn unknowns into actionable next steps. This approach keeps the Zero Trust roadmap moving forward, even when the original plan gets sidetracked. Research shows that adaptive follow-up isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s essential for translating workshop insights into real, lasting change.
Turning Hiccups into Strategic Outcomes
Let’s be honest—workshops rarely go exactly as scheduled. Sometimes, a technical hiccup reveals a gap in device compliance. Other times, an offhand comment from a participant uncovers a new Zero Trust challenge or sparks a project that wasn’t even on the agenda. I still remember the time an impromptu audit, triggered by a minor incident, exposed a critical vulnerability that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. These moments can feel chaotic, but with the right follow-up strategies, they become opportunities rather than setbacks.
What matters most is documenting these surprises and assigning clear next steps. A ‘Follow-up’ status isn’t a dead-end; it’s a signal that something valuable was discovered and needs attention. This mindset turns workshop hiccups into the seeds of future security initiatives, keeping the Zero Trust journey genuine and continuous.
Effective Closure: Recap, Prioritize, and Engage Leadership
Closure is more than a formality—it’s a pivotal moment in the Zero Trust roadmap. As I often remind teams,
Closure's a big deal. When you step back, you've helped the customer build their entire Zero Trust strategy… summarize the big picture that highlights the good things the customer is doing, especially when leadership is there, as well as the top three to five things that need to start being worked on.
I recommend scheduling a one-hour closure meeting with leadership present. During this meeting, I recap achievements, highlight three to five actionable next steps, and set the stage for ongoing collaboration. This isn’t just about ticking boxes—it’s about reinforcing relationships, showing progress, and ensuring that Zero Trust challenges are met with clear, prioritized actions.
Recap achievements: Celebrate what’s working and build confidence.
Highlight opportunity areas: Identify the top priorities for follow-up projects.
Engage leadership: Secure buy-in and maintain Zero Trust momentum.
Workshops often spark new security projects that go well beyond the initial scope. Sometimes, it’s by accident—a vulnerability discovered by luck, a new compliance requirement, or an emerging threat. The key is to capture these moments, adapt quickly, and keep the Zero Trust journey moving forward with clear, actionable follow-up strategies.
Beyond the Slides: Zero Trust as an Ongoing Adventure (Not a Checkbox)
As I reflect on the Zero Trust workshop and the journey it represents, one truth stands out: Zero Trust maturity is not a finish line. It’s not a box you tick off after a successful audit or a project you archive once the slides are closed. Instead, Zero Trust is an ongoing adventure—one that evolves with every new threat, every unexpected audit, and, yes, even the occasional office pet that manages to disrupt your best-laid plans.
Security modernization is often discussed in terms of frameworks and milestones, but the reality is far less linear. The Zero Trust journey is iterative, sometimes messy, and always subject to change. Catastrophes—big or small—have a way of testing the assumptions we make during planning. That’s why I see the Zero Trust workshop not as a static checklist, but as a living rehearsal for whatever comes next. It’s a space to challenge our thinking, to ask “what if?” and to prepare for the unpredictable nature of real-world security operations.
Microsoft’s approach to Zero Trust progress recognizes this reality. Their documentation and guidance are not set in stone; they evolve as new threats emerge and as organizations learn from their own experiences. Workshop time estimates and structures change as new materials and guidance become available. This flexibility is crucial. It allows teams to adapt when reality diverges from plans, ensuring that Zero Trust maturity remains a continuous process rather than a one-time achievement.
What I’ve found most valuable in these workshops is how they inspire new thinking. As I’ve seen firsthand, “We’ve seen this as a great vehicle to kick start ideas for new projects.” The best sessions don’t just reinforce best practices—they spark unexpected conversations and lead to initiatives that might never have surfaced otherwise. In fact, some of the most impactful security modernization projects I’ve been part of began as side discussions during a Zero Trust workshop, fueled by a shared sense of curiosity and a willingness to challenge the status quo.
Research shows that Zero Trust resilience comes from treating security as a process of continuous learning and adaptation. This means embracing the idea that there will always be new risks, new technologies, and new lessons to absorb. Microsoft supports this with a steady stream of updated resources, including aka.ms/ztworkshopguide and aka.ms/ztworkshop, making it easier for teams to stay aligned with the latest guidance and best practices.
So, as we wrap up this overview of the security operations pillar, I encourage you to see the Zero Trust workshop as more than a review. Treat it as a rehearsal for the next crisis, a launchpad for new ideas, and a reminder that genuine Zero Trust progress is about expecting—and embracing—the unexpected. If you’re ready to explore more, visit aka.ms/ztworkshop to dive deeper into the pillars and resources that can help your organization on its ongoing Zero Trust adventure.