The real test of a cybersecurity program is not whether it sounds good on
paper. It is whether the organization can reduce risk, satisfy demanding
customers and assessors, support the business, operate the program year
after year, and know what to improve next.
These examples show Hotman Group working alongside organizations to diagnose
complex problems, design the right approach, build and remediate programs,
implement GRC technology, prepare for assessments, support business growth
and operate Cyber GRC over time.
200+people in a new federal business supported by CMMC Level 2
certification
<3 mo.from very little in place to SOC 2 Type 1, including GRC platform
implementation
95%audit evidence reused across frameworks in a GRC transformation
2/3reduction in mapped controls in a complex multi-framework program
Proof Across the Problems Organizations Actually Face
The engagements below are intentionally organized around the client problem
and business outcome, not around a list of frameworks or services.
CMMC Level 2 · Complex Scoping · Federal Growth
Building the Cybersecurity Foundation for a New Federal Business
A large global consulting organization needed CMMC Level 2 certification
to support a rapidly growing federal business. Its technical environment
was complex, including an enclave, on-premises systems and broader
enterprise dependencies.
Clean CMMC Level 2 certification200+ person federal business supported
The problem
The organization needed more than a checklist assessment. It needed to
determine the correct CUI scope, remediate technical and documentation
gaps, make practical architecture decisions and prepare a defensible
program for formal assessment. Revenue depended on getting it right.
What Hotman Group did
HG began with gap and scoping work, then supported remediation end to
end. The team developed and strengthened documentation including the
SSP, worked directly with technical teams on solution design, helped
make time-sensitive implementation decisions without compromising
program integrity, and supported the organization through
certification.
Outcomes
Achieved a clean CMMC Level 2 certification.
Completed the journey in approximately 12 months despite significant
client-side technology delays.
Supported a new federal business unit that grew to more than 200
employees.
Enabled continued pursuit and delivery of multi-million-dollar federal
revenue.
Continued post-certification work to mature technical capabilities and
adjust scope as the business evolved.
Avoided further certification delay that would have continued putting
federal revenue at risk.
Capabilities demonstrated: CMMC Level 2, NIST 800-171, CUI scoping,
enclave strategy, SSP development, technical remediation, assessment
readiness, post-certification sustainment and cybersecurity-enabled
business growth.
SOC 2 · AI Company · GRC Technology
Going From Almost No Formal Program to SOC 2 Type 1 in Under Three Months
An AI-focused company needed SOC 2, but had very little formal
cybersecurity and compliance infrastructure in place. A generic
out-of-the-box control set would not adequately reflect the company's
actual technology, risks or operating environment.
Under three monthsSOC 2 Type 1 and GRC platform implementation
The problem
The company needed to move quickly without building a checkbox program
that existed only to obtain a report. It needed an appropriately
scoped control environment, usable GRC technology and an audit
approach that could withstand scrutiny while supporting the business.
What Hotman Group did
HG designed a right-sized control environment around the company's
actual risks, built the program into an appropriate GRC platform,
developed the necessary governance and documentation, helped remediate
gaps, connected the company with an appropriate independent auditor
and supported the audit process.
Outcomes
Moved from very little formal program infrastructure to SOC 2 Type 1
in under three months.
Built and operationalized the program in the GRC platform within that
same period.
Designed controls for the company's real AI and technology environment
rather than adopting a generic control bank.
Successfully completed Type 1 and entered the Type 2 operating period.
Created a foundation designed to mature after the initial audit
milestone.
Capabilities demonstrated: SOC 2, AI-company cybersecurity, control
design, GRC platform implementation, remediation, audit readiness and
rapid program buildout.
vGRC · Ongoing Operations · Five Frameworks
Operating 400+ Controls Across Five Frameworks Without Adding Internal GRC
Headcount
For nearly five years, Hotman Group has worked alongside one organization
as an extension of its internal team, helping operate and mature a large
multi-framework Cyber GRC program instead of treating compliance as a
once-a-year audit project.
400+ controls operatedFive frameworks with flat internal GRC headcount
The problem
The organization's internal professionals already had full-time
responsibilities. Multiple frameworks, recurring audits and
assessments, customer expectations and ongoing control monitoring
created workload that did not occur evenly throughout the year.
Staffing internally for peak periods would have created a different
problem during quieter periods.
What Hotman Group did
HG provides ongoing program oversight, monitors control performance,
identifies failures and opportunities for improvement, prioritizes
remediation, organizes audit and assessment activity, supports control
owners and helps expand the program as new requirements emerge.
Outcomes
Supports ongoing operation of more than 400 controls.
Expanded and integrated the program to five frameworks.
Also supports external assessments including HIPAA and NIST CSF.
Internal GRC headcount has remained flat while the program expanded.
Reduced dependence on last-minute audit preparation and scarce
engineering time.
Created continuous visibility into failures and improvement
opportunities instead of waiting for an auditor to find them.
Capabilities demonstrated: vGRC, managed Cyber GRC, multi-framework
operations, control monitoring, audit support, HIPAA, NIST CSF, program
expansion, remediation prioritization and long-term sustainment.
Multi-Framework · SOX · SOC 1 · SOC 2
Reducing a Bloated Control Environment by Approximately Two-Thirds
A large publicly traded SaaS company had a fragmented compliance
environment and hundreds of controls. Years of audit-driven decisions had
created unnecessary complexity without producing a better operating model.
Approximately two-thirds fewer mapped controlsLess duplication across frameworks
The problem
Control scope and design needed to be corrected across SOX ITGC, SOC 1
and SOC 2 while coordinating decentralized product teams. The
organization was doing too much in some places and lacked the right
structure in others.
What Hotman Group did
HG reassessed scope, controls and testing; rewrote and rationalized
controls; aligned overlapping requirements; worked with control owners
and product teams; and established a more risk-based model designed
for continuous operation rather than audit-time activity.
Outcomes
Reduced mapped controls by approximately two-thirds.
Reduced duplicate effort across frameworks.
Created a more defensible and appropriately scoped control
environment.
Improved audit preparation and control consistency across
decentralized teams.
Shifted the program toward risk and ongoing Cyber GRC maturity rather
than simply producing an audit result.
Capabilities demonstrated: control rationalization, multi-framework
architecture, SOX ITGC, SOC 1, SOC 2, scoping, control design,
operating-model improvement and audit readiness.
GRC Technology · Common Controls · Automation
Consolidating 20+ Tools and Reusing 95% of Audit Evidence Across
Frameworks
Trintech needed to modernize disconnected GRC processes and manual
workflows while supporting a growing compliance portfolio. Hotman Group
worked with Trintech and StandardFusion to align the technology with the
operating model and improve adoption.
20+ tools consolidated95% audit evidence reuse
The problem
Risk management, policy mapping and audit preparation were spread
across more than 20 tools. Redundant processes, manual follow-up and
disconnected evidence made it increasingly difficult to scale.
What Hotman Group did
HG helped optimize workflows, align the GRC platform to operational
goals, support adoption, automate processes and enable cross-framework
evidence mapping through a Common Control Framework.
Outcomes
Consolidated more than 20 tools into a single GRC platform.
Reused 95% of audit evidence across SOC, ISO, CSA and DORA.
Handled a 33% increase in audit volume without additional resources.
Avoided the need for an additional FTE.
Reduced manual follow-up through automated workflows.
Improved scalability as compliance requirements grew.
“Hotman Group and StandardFusion helped us move from manual processes to a
system that drives itself.”Jerry Koshy, Director of Compliance and Audit, Trintech
Capabilities demonstrated: GRC platform implementation, workflow
design, Common Control Frameworks, evidence reuse, automation,
multi-framework management and operationalization.
Turning Multiple Risk Registers With Hundreds of Risks Into a System
Leadership Could Use
One organization had at least three separate risk registers, each
containing hundreds of risks. Different parts of the business maintained
different views, issues inflated the registers, and executives had no
coherent way to determine what required action.
Three or more registers unifiedExecutive-ready risk view
The problem
A long list is not the same thing as risk management. Business,
product, security and technology risks needed to come together without
turning every vulnerability, finding or issue into another top-level
enterprise risk.
What Hotman Group did
HG consolidated the risk structure, created hierarchy and
categorization, assigned ownership, established issue management
within the broader risk model, defined a recurring update cadence and
designed executive reporting that elevated the small number of issues
leadership could meaningfully act on.
Outcomes
Consolidated at least three separate registers containing hundreds of
risks each.
Created one risk structure spanning business, product, cybersecurity
and technology.
Established hierarchy so findings and issues could be ingested without
artificially inflating enterprise risk counts.
Connected vulnerabilities, audit findings and other issues back to
underlying risks.
Created executive-level dashboarding and prioritization.
Established a dynamic process rather than an annual risk-register
exercise.
Capabilities demonstrated: enterprise cyber risk, risk-register
rationalization, issue management, executive reporting, risk ownership,
GRC operating model and technology enablement.
ISO 27001 · DORA · End-to-End Implementation
Implementing ISO 27001 and DORA Together in Approximately Nine Months
An organization without dedicated internal compliance expertise needed to
address ISO 27001:2022 and DORA at the same time. The requirements
mattered not only for compliance, but for protecting customer
relationships and supporting future opportunities.
Approximately nine monthsISO 27001 and DORA together
The problem
The company needed to understand the gaps, determine what actually had
to change, build the program, remediate the environment and
successfully navigate certification without creating separate silos
for ISO and DORA.
What Hotman Group did
HG performed the gap assessment, developed the roadmap, supported
remediation, designed the program across both requirements, helped
select the independent auditor and supported the organization through
the certification process.
Outcomes
Completed ISO 27001 and DORA work together in approximately nine
months end to end.
Successfully completed ISO 27001 certification with no certification
issues.
Built one coordinated approach rather than two separate compliance
programs.
Closed critical security and compliance gaps.
Created a sustainable foundation for ongoing ISO and DORA
requirements.
Capabilities demonstrated: ISO 27001, DORA, gap assessment, roadmap
development, remediation, certification readiness, auditor selection and
multi-requirement program design.
Customer Due Diligence · Cyber Risk · Revenue Enablement
Helping a Service Provider Navigate Security Demands and Win a Major
Banking Contract
A niche service provider faced an intensive pre-contract cybersecurity
review from a major banking customer. The customer's expectations extended
beyond normal industry practices, and blindly implementing every request
would have created unnecessary cost and operational disruption.
Major banking contract wonRisk-based customer response
The problem
The review raised questions involving logging, network security,
privileged accounts, DLP, change management and an audit issue. The
client needed to distinguish the customer's stated request from the
underlying risk the customer actually needed addressed.
What Hotman Group did
HG supported the on-site review and months of follow-up, translated
requirements into risk decisions, identified alternative controls
where appropriate, corrected the interpretation of an audit issue and
helped the client communicate a clear, defensible security position.
Outcomes
Successfully secured the banking contract.
Addressed customer risk without unnecessary operational disruption.
Improved the organization's ability to respond to future customer due
diligence.
Strengthened audit readiness and regulatory-response capability.
Demonstrated how cybersecurity judgment can support revenue rather
than simply add requirements.
Capabilities demonstrated: customer security requirements,
cybersecurity risk assessment, due diligence, compensating controls, audit
interpretation, customer assurance and revenue enablement.
Sometimes the Right Answer Is Not What the Client Originally Asked to Buy
Independent judgment matters because the requested service, technology or
control is not always the solution to the underlying cybersecurity
problem. Hotman Group starts by determining what problem actually needs to
be solved.
Scope before the CMMC gap assessment
A complex organization was prepared to spend tens of thousands of
dollars on a CMMC gap assessment before it understood where CUI
existed across seven ERP systems and a major technology
transformation. HG recommended scoping first so the eventual
assessment would evaluate the right environment.
Design the program before trusting the software
Organizations frequently buy GRC technology expecting the platform to
create the program. HG instead establishes the operating model,
controls, ownership and workflows the technology needs to support,
then configures or selects technology around those requirements.
More controls do not automatically mean more security
When a large SaaS environment had accumulated more than 300 SOC 2
controls, HG challenged the inherited model and rationalized the
control environment around actual scope, risk and responsibility
rather than perpetuating unnecessary complexity.
More Evidence of How HG Works
110 SPRS
30-day NIST 800-171 preparation
A defense contractor facing a DCMA-led assessment with only 30 days to
prepare achieved a perfect 110 SPRS score after focused scoping,
evidence, SSP and remediation work.
0 NCs + 51 OFIs
Passing is not the end of the work
In a recent ISO internal audit, HG identified zero nonconformities and
51 opportunities for improvement, giving the client a risk-based
improvement roadmap instead of treating a clean result as a reason to
stop looking.
Years, not audit cycles
Programs should keep getting better
HG's ongoing work includes control monitoring, internal audits,
external assessments, customer reviews, remediation prioritization and
maturity improvements that continue long after an initial
certification or audit.
The Common Thread: Solve the Cybersecurity Problem, Not Just the
Requirement
These engagements span different industries, frameworks, technologies and
business pressures. The operating principle is consistent: connect
cybersecurity, risk, governance, compliance, technology, audit
understanding and implementation so the organization can build something
that works in practice and keeps working over time.
