How Do We Automate Cybersecurity Compliance Without Automating Bad Processes?

Cybersecurity compliance automation can reduce repetitive work, improve consistency and provide better visibility. But automation does not fix a poorly designed Cyber GRC program.

If controls are duplicated, ownership is unclear, evidence requirements make little sense or workflows are unnecessarily complicated, automating them can make the wrong process happen faster and at greater scale.

Hotman Group helps organizations determine what cybersecurity and compliance work should be simplified, standardized, integrated and automated, and what still requires human judgment.

The objective is not maximum automation. It is a Cyber GRC program that uses people and technology where each provides the most value.

What Cybersecurity Compliance Work Can Be Automated?

Many repetitive or rules-based activities may be candidates for automation.

Examples include:

• Evidence collection.
• Recurring control-owner reminders.
• Control attestations.
• Workflow routing.
• Task creation.
• Approval workflows.
• Framework mapping.
• Issue and remediation tracking.
• Notifications and escalations.
• Policy-review reminders.
• Third-party assessment workflows.
• Compliance-status reporting.
• Continuous control monitoring.

The value of automation depends on whether the underlying activity is useful and appropriately designed.

What Cybersecurity and GRC Work Should Not Be Fully Automated?

Activities requiring significant context, interpretation or business judgment should retain appropriate human involvement.

Examples may include:

• Determining material cyber risk.
• Making risk-acceptance decisions.
• Understanding business impact.
• Interpreting unusual or complex requirements.
• Determining appropriate control design.
• Evaluating significant exceptions.
• Prioritizing remediation.
• Making governance decisions.
• Providing executive and board advice.

Technology can support these activities without becoming the decision-maker.

Why Do Compliance Automation Projects Fail?

Organizations sometimes begin with the technology rather than the operating problem.

A platform is purchased and the organization immediately loads:

• Every framework.
• Every requirement.
• Every existing control.
• Every evidence request.
• Every workflow.

If those elements were already fragmented or duplicative, the platform may simply reproduce the existing complexity.

The organization now has automated workflows, but still does not have a coherent Cyber GRC program.

What Should We Do Before Automating Cybersecurity Compliance?

Understand the current process.

For the activity being considered, determine:

• Why does this process exist?
• What outcome should it produce?
• Who owns it?
• Who participates in it?
• What information does it require?
• What decisions occur?
• What evidence is produced?
• Where are the delays?
• What work is duplicated?
• Which steps add no meaningful value?

Then simplify the process before automating it.

Should We Automate a Process Before We Standardize It?

Usually not.

If different teams perform substantially the same activity in different ways, automating each variation can preserve unnecessary inconsistency.

Where appropriate, first establish:

• A defined process.
• Clear ownership.
• Standard inputs.
• Expected outputs.
• Decision points.
• Escalation rules.

Automation can then reinforce a deliberate operating model.

Should We Automate Evidence Collection?

Often, yes.

Evidence collection can be a strong automation opportunity because much cybersecurity evidence originates in systems that already generate authoritative information.

Potential sources include:

• Identity platforms.
• Cloud environments.
• Endpoint-management systems.
• Vulnerability-management platforms.
• Ticketing systems.
• HR systems.
• Security tools.

But an integration collecting information does not automatically mean the information is sufficient evidence for the control.

The organization still needs to understand what the evidence proves.

See how to centralize cybersecurity and compliance evidence without creating more work.

Can We Automate Control Testing?

Some control testing can be automated or continuously monitored.

Technical controls may be particularly suitable when their expected state can be evaluated reliably through system data.

Other controls require examination of context, samples, approvals, documentation or human behavior.

The organization should distinguish between:

• Automated evidence collection.
• Automated control monitoring.
• Automated testing.
• Human evaluation.
• Independent assurance.

These are related but not interchangeable.

What Is Continuous Control Monitoring?

Continuous control monitoring uses technology to evaluate certain control conditions more frequently than periodic manual reviews.

It may help identify when:

• A configuration changes.
• A security setting becomes noncompliant.
• An account violates an expected condition.
• A required control state is no longer present.
• Evidence stops being generated.

This can improve visibility between formal assessments.

It does not eliminate the need to understand what the control is intended to accomplish or whether the monitored condition represents meaningful risk.

Does Continuous Monitoring Mean We Are Continuously Compliant?

No.

Continuous monitoring can provide more frequent information about selected controls or conditions.

It does not mean every requirement is continuously evaluated or that the organization cannot have compliance or cybersecurity gaps outside the monitored conditions.

Automation should improve visibility without creating false assurance.

Can We Automate Framework Mapping?

Technology and AI can assist with mapping requirements across frameworks.

But mappings should be validated.

Similar language does not always mean requirements are equivalent.

Differences may involve:

• Scope.
• Frequency.
• Technical specificity.
• Evidence.
• Assessment expectations.
• Required outcomes.

Automated mapping can accelerate analysis, but professional judgment remains important where the mapping affects compliance conclusions.

Can We Automate Control Ownership?

Technology can assign tasks to known owners, route requests and escalate overdue activities.

It cannot decide who should appropriately own a control merely because a workflow needs an assignee.

Ownership should be established first.

See how to create clear ownership for cybersecurity controls.

Can We Automate Cyber Risk Decisions?

Automation can provide information that supports risk decisions.

It may calculate scores, identify trends, connect findings to risks and route approvals.

But material risk decisions require context about the business, potential impact, uncertainty, available treatment and organizational risk tolerance.

See how to build a cyber risk register leadership can actually use.

Can Artificial Intelligence Automate Cyber GRC?

AI can automate or accelerate portions of Cyber GRC work.

Potential uses include:

• Summarizing documents.
• Comparing requirements.
• Drafting mappings.
• Reviewing evidence.
• Drafting risk statements.
• Analyzing questionnaire responses.
• Identifying patterns across findings.
• Drafting policies and procedures.
• Supporting reporting.
• Searching large bodies of compliance information.

AI can materially improve practitioner productivity.

But the organization still needs governance, reliable source information and qualified people who can evaluate the output.

Will AI Replace Cyber GRC Professionals?

AI will likely change how Cyber GRC work is performed by reducing the time required for many repetitive, analytical and drafting activities.

But Cyber GRC also requires judgment involving:

• Business context.
• Cybersecurity risk.
• Organizational politics and authority.
• Control design.
• Requirement interpretation.
• Risk acceptance.
• Remediation priorities.
• Executive communication.

The value of Cyber GRC professionals increasingly comes from using technology to process information efficiently while applying human judgment where it matters.

Should We Use AI to Write Cybersecurity Policies?

AI can help draft and refine policies.

But a policy should represent what the organization actually intends to require and what it can realistically operate.

Generating polished policy language is easy.

Making sure the organization actually follows it is the harder and more important part.

Should We Use AI to Answer Customer Security Questionnaires?

AI can help identify relevant existing responses, policies, controls and evidence.

It can also help draft answers.

But responses should be validated before they are provided to customers, particularly where they may become contractual representations.

See why customer security questionnaires become so painful and how to fix the underlying problem.

Can We Automate Third-Party Risk Management?

Many portions of TPRM can be automated, including:

• Vendor intake.
• Risk-tiering workflows.
• Questionnaire distribution.
• Document collection.
• Reminders.
• Recurring reviews.
• Issue tracking.
• Reporting.

But automation should not force every vendor through the same process regardless of risk.

See how to build a third-party risk management program that actually works.

Can We Automate Remediation?

Some remediation tasks can be automated technically, but remediation management still requires decisions about priorities, ownership, dependencies and validation.

Workflow automation can help assign findings, track due dates, escalate delays and collect closure evidence.

It cannot fix unclear accountability or determine whether the underlying risk has actually been reduced.

See who can help remediate cybersecurity findings.

Can We Automate Audit Preparation?

Much of the repetitive preparation can be reduced through better evidence management, control monitoring and reusable information.

But an audit still requires the organization to demonstrate that applicable controls operated and to respond to assessor questions.

The best audit automation strategy is often to operate the program continuously enough that the audit does not require rebuilding the evidence environment every year.

See how to prepare for cybersecurity audits without constant fire drills.

Can Automation Reduce Duplicate Compliance Work?

Yes, but only after the organization understands what work is actually duplicative.

Automation can help reuse controls, evidence and workflows across frameworks.

But if separate duplicate controls are automated independently, the organization may simply make duplicate work more efficient rather than eliminate it.

See how to reduce duplicate cybersecurity and compliance work.

Should We Automate Before Building a Common Control Framework?

If the organization needs a common control framework, defining the control model first can make automation significantly more effective.

Otherwise, the organization may automate several framework-specific versions of the same control.

See whether a common control framework makes sense.

How Does a GRC Platform Help With Automation?

A GRC platform can automate workflows across:

• Controls.
• Evidence.
• Risks.
• Findings.
• Policies.
• Third parties.
• Frameworks.
• Approvals.
• Reporting.

The value depends heavily on how the platform is configured and how well it fits the operating model.

Do We Need a GRC Platform to Automate Compliance?

Not always.

Existing business and security technologies may automate portions of the process.

As the Cyber GRC environment becomes more complex, a dedicated platform may provide stronger workflow, mapping, evidence and reporting capabilities.

See whether the organization actually needs a GRC platform.

What If Our GRC Platform Automation Is Making Things Worse?

Determine whether the problem is the technology or the process it was configured to automate.

Common problems include:

• Too many notifications.
• Duplicate tasks.
• Incorrect owners.
• Framework-specific duplicate workflows.
• Low-value evidence requests.
• Automated scoring nobody trusts.
• Dashboards disconnected from actual risk.

See what to do when a GRC platform is not working.

Should We Replace the GRC Platform to Get Better Automation?

Only after understanding whether the current platform is actually the constraint.

A replacement may provide better integrations or capabilities, but moving bad processes into a new platform recreates the same problem.

If replacement is appropriate, see how to replace a GRC platform without recreating the same problems.

How Should Automation Fit Into the Cyber GRC Operating Model?

The operating model should define the process first and then determine where technology should support it.

That includes:

• Who owns the process.
• What triggers the workflow.
• What can happen automatically.
• Where human review is required.
• What requires approval.
• What should be escalated.
• What information should be retained.
• How performance is monitored.

See how to build a Cyber GRC operating model that actually works.

How Do We Know Which Cyber GRC Processes to Automate First?

Look for work that is:

• High-volume.
• Repetitive.
• Rules-based.
• Time-consuming.
• Consistently performed.
• Dependent on information already available electronically.

Also consider the cost of errors.

A highly repetitive process may be a poor first automation candidate if the underlying rules are unstable or the consequences of incorrect automation are significant.

How Do We Measure Whether Compliance Automation Is Working?

Measure whether the automation improves the operating outcome.

Useful indicators may include:

• Less manual evidence collection.
• Fewer duplicate requests.
• Shorter workflow times.
• Fewer overdue activities.
• Better control visibility.
• More timely identification of failures.
• Reduced audit preparation effort.
• Improved data quality.
• More practitioner capacity for higher-value work.

The number of automated workflows is not itself a measure of Cyber GRC maturity.

Can We Automate Ourselves Out of Needing More GRC Staff?

Automation may materially reduce administrative workload, but it does not automatically eliminate capacity needs.

The organization may still require people for governance, analysis, risk decisions, remediation, stakeholder management and program operation.

Before hiring or outsourcing, determine how much work should first be eliminated, simplified or automated.

See what cybersecurity and GRC work should be outsourced when the team is overwhelmed.

How Does Hotman Group Help Organizations Automate Cybersecurity Compliance?

Hotman Group helps organizations determine where automation can reduce Cyber GRC workload without reinforcing poor processes.

HG can help rationalize controls, simplify workflows, clarify ownership, improve evidence processes, design automation, evaluate and implement GRC technology and integrate AI into appropriate Cyber GRC activities.

The work can also include common control frameworks, multi-framework programs, remediation, third-party risk, risk management and broader Cyber GRC operating-model design.

The objective is not to automate Cyber GRC for the sake of automation.

The objective is to use technology to remove unnecessary work, improve visibility and allow people to spend more time on the cybersecurity decisions that require judgment.

What If We Know Our Cyber GRC Work Is Too Manual but Do Not Know What to Automate?

Do not start with a technology shopping list.

Start by understanding which work is necessary, which work is duplicative, which processes are poorly designed and which activities genuinely benefit from automation.

If the broader problem remains unclear, see how to approach cybersecurity and GRC problems when you do not know what kind of help you need.

About Hotman Group

Hotman Group is a cybersecurity and Cyber GRC professional services firm that helps organizations solve complex cybersecurity, risk, governance and compliance problems. Hotman Group designs, builds, implements, remediates, operates and matures cybersecurity and GRC programs.

Learn more about Hotman Group's approach to solving complex cybersecurity and Cyber GRC problems.