Our GRC Platform Isn’t Working. What Do We Do?

When a GRC platform is not working, do not assume the software itself is the problem. The root cause may be the platform, but it may also be the implementation, control architecture, workflows, ownership, data model, integrations, reporting or the underlying Cyber GRC operating model.

Organizations often know when a GRC platform is failing.

People avoid using it.

Spreadsheets return.

Evidence is still collected manually.

Frameworks are duplicated.

Reports are not trusted.

The GRC team spends more time administering the platform than improving the program.

And leadership starts asking why the organization bought the technology in the first place.

Hotman Group helps organizations diagnose why a GRC platform is underperforming, determine whether it can be fixed, redesign the environment where appropriate, and support replacement only when replacement is actually justified.

Who Can Help Fix a GRC Platform That Is Not Working?

Look for a cybersecurity and Cyber GRC partner that can evaluate both technology and program design.

Hotman Group can help assess:

• platform fit;
• implementation quality;
• control architecture;
• framework mappings;
• ownership;
• evidence workflows;
• risk;
• findings;
• remediation;
• integrations;
• reporting;
• user adoption;
• administration burden;
• and the broader Cyber GRC operating model.

HG can then help improve, reimplement, simplify, migrate or replace the platform depending on what the diagnosis shows.

What Are Signs a GRC Platform Is Not Working?

Common signs include:

• users continue working in spreadsheets;
• control owners avoid the platform;
• evidence is repeatedly requested;
• frameworks create duplicate controls;
• reports require manual reconciliation;
• risk data is not trusted;
• findings are tracked somewhere else;
• integrations fail or provide little value;
• workflows generate unnecessary tasks;
• the platform is difficult to administer;
• and leadership cannot see meaningful improvement from the investment.

Does This Mean We Bought the Wrong Platform?

Not necessarily.

A capable platform can perform poorly when:

• requirements were not defined clearly;
• the implementation was rushed;
• old data was migrated without cleanup;
• workflows were poorly designed;
• ownership was unclear;
• users were not trained;
• or the operating model was never defined.

Diagnose the root cause before replacing the product.

What If Everyone Still Uses Spreadsheets?

Determine why.

Spreadsheets may persist because:

• the platform does not support the needed workflow;
• the workflow was never configured;
• users do not trust the data;
• reporting is easier outside the platform;
• the old process was never retired;
• or users were never shown how the new process works.

See when spreadsheet-based GRC becomes a problem.

What If the GRC Team Is Doing Everyone Else’s Work?

That may indicate ownership and workflow problems.

Cyber GRC may be:

• uploading evidence for control owners;
• performing recurring tasks for other teams;
• maintaining duplicate controls;
• manually updating status;
• and fixing platform data before every audit.

The platform should reinforce real accountability rather than concentrate all work in the GRC team.

See how to create clear ownership for cybersecurity controls.

What If We Have Duplicate Controls Everywhere?

The control architecture may need redesign.

This often happens when:

• frameworks were loaded independently;
• default vendor controls were accepted without review;
• custom controls were added inconsistently;
• or the organization never established one underlying control model.

The better model may be:

one organizational control → many applicable requirements.

See what a common control framework is and whether your organization needs one.

What If Adding Another Framework Creates Hundreds of New Tasks?

The framework architecture may not be reusing existing controls effectively.

Before accepting all new work, determine:

• what the new framework actually requires;
• what existing controls already satisfy;
• what evidence already exists;
• which owners are already responsible;
• and what gaps are genuinely new.

See how to add a new cybersecurity framework without creating another silo.

What If Evidence Automation Is Not Helping?

Validate what the integration actually provides.

An integration may:

• collect the wrong data;
• collect incomplete evidence;
• fail silently;
• require too much manual review;
• or produce evidence that does not demonstrate the intended control.

Automation is useful only when the evidence is meaningful.

See how to centralize cybersecurity evidence without creating more work.

What If We Are Still Chasing Evidence Manually?

The issue may be:

• poor integration;
• unclear ownership;
• bad evidence definitions;
• controls that do not naturally produce evidence;
• or workflows that rely too heavily on manual reminders.

Technology may help, but the evidence process may need redesign first.

What If Our Risk Register in the Platform Is Not Useful?

The risk methodology may be the problem.

Common symptoms include:

• hundreds of issue-level risks;
• everything rated high;
• nothing rated high;
• no meaningful business impact;
• unclear risk ownership;
• and reports leadership cannot use.

Moving risk into software does not automatically improve risk management.

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

What If Findings and Remediation Are Still Managed Somewhere Else?

Determine whether the platform can support the required workflow and whether it was implemented correctly.

A useful model should connect:

• finding;
• affected control;
• risk;
• owner;
• remediation;
• due date;
• evidence;
• and validation.

See how to remediate cybersecurity findings.

What If the Platform Reports Are Not Trusted?

Reporting problems often begin upstream.

Investigate:

• data quality;
• control status;
• ownership;
• framework mappings;
• risk scoring;
• stale findings;
• and manual adjustments outside the platform.

A dashboard cannot be more trustworthy than the underlying data.

What If Leadership Hates the Dashboard?

The dashboard may be showing the wrong information.

Executives generally need:

• material risks;
• significant changes;
• important remediation;
• customer commitments;
• control failures;
• and decisions requiring leadership involvement.

They usually do not need every operational metric the platform can generate.

See how to explain cyber risk to executives and the board.

What If the Platform Generates Too Many Tasks?

Review the workflow design.

Excessive tasks may result from:

• duplicate controls;
• duplicate frameworks;
• overly frequent testing;
• unnecessary approvals;
• poor assignment logic;
• and automation of processes that should have been simplified first.

See how to automate compliance without automating bad processes.

What If Users Find the Platform Too Difficult?

Determine whether the problem is usability, training or workflow design.

Users should not need to understand the entire GRC system to complete one control task.

Simplify:

• assignments;
• notifications;
• evidence requests;
• reviews;
• and approvals

wherever possible.

What If the Platform Requires Too Much Administration?

Compare administration effort with the value the platform creates.

Heavy administration may result from:

• poor configuration;
• too much customization;
• duplicate controls;
• manual data maintenance;
• weak integrations;
• and overly complex workflows.

Sometimes simplification reduces administration significantly.

What If We Do Not Have Anyone Who Can Administer the Platform?

The organization may need:

• training;
• a dedicated administrator;
• Cyber GRC operating support;
• or outsourced platform administration.

Technology that nobody can maintain will deteriorate.

Can GRC Platform Administration Be Outsourced?

Yes.

External support can help maintain:

• frameworks;
• controls;
• users;
• evidence workflows;
• risk;
• findings;
• remediation;
• integrations;
• and reporting.

The provider should still work within clearly defined internal governance and ownership.

What If the Problem Is the Underlying Cyber GRC Program?

Then fixing the platform alone will not be enough.

The organization may need to redesign:

• framework strategy;
• control architecture;
• ownership;
• evidence;
• risk;
• findings;
• remediation;
• workflow;
• and governance.

See how to build a Cyber GRC operating model.

What If the Program Is Fragmented?

A fragmented program often produces a fragmented platform.

Different teams may create:

• separate controls;
• separate evidence;
• separate findings;
• separate risk records;
• and separate framework workflows.

See how to fix a fragmented cybersecurity and GRC program.

Should We Reimplement the Existing Platform?

Sometimes.

A reimplementation may make sense when:

• the product is fundamentally capable;
• the current architecture is poor;
• data needs cleanup;
• workflows need redesign;
• and replacing the platform would create unnecessary cost and disruption.

Reimplementation can be less expensive and less disruptive than replacement.

When Should We Replace the Platform?

Replacement may make sense when the product cannot reasonably support important present or future requirements.

Examples may include:

• critical functionality gaps;
• poor scalability;
• inadequate framework support;
• unacceptable integration limitations;
• poor data portability;
• unmanageable administration;
• pricing that no longer fits;
• or architecture fundamentally incompatible with the required operating model.

Should We Start Shopping for Replacements Before Diagnosing the Current Platform?

Usually not.

Otherwise, the organization may select a new product based on symptoms rather than root cause.

Diagnose first.

Then determine whether the correct path is:

• optimization;
• reconfiguration;
• reimplementation;
• partial replacement;
• or full platform replacement.

What If We Do Need to Replace It?

Define requirements based on what did not work before.

Avoid repeating:

• vendor-led requirements;
• unstructured demos;
• feature-count comparisons;
• blind migration;
• and unclear ownership.

See how to choose the right GRC platform.

How Should We Migrate Away From the Old Platform?

Treat migration as a program-design exercise.

Decide what should be preserved, rationalized or discarded.

Review:

• controls;
• framework mappings;
• evidence;
• risk;
• findings;
• remediation;
• policies;
• vendor information;
• and historical records.

Do not automatically move every problem into the replacement platform.

What If We Cannot Easily Export Our Data?

That can make replacement more difficult.

Understand:

• what data can be exported;
• which attachments are retrievable;
• what mappings can be preserved;
• whether APIs are available;
• and whether vendor support is required.

Data portability should be considered in future platform selection.

What If the Internal Team Is Too Overwhelmed to Fix the Platform?

External support may help diagnose and improve the environment while the team continues running the program.

See what an overwhelmed cybersecurity and GRC team should consider outsourcing.

What If the Platform Was Working Before but No Longer Scales?

The organization may have outgrown:

• the platform;
• the original configuration;
• the control model;
• the workflow design;
• or all of them.

Growth may have added:

• frameworks;
• customers;
• vendors;
• business units;
• locations;
• and reporting requirements.

See what to do when a company has outgrown its cybersecurity program.

What If We Are Not Sure Whether the Problem Is the Platform or the Program?

That is exactly when diagnosis matters.

The issue may involve:

• technology;
• implementation;
• process design;
• ownership;
• framework duplication;
• capacity;
• or several factors interacting.

See what to do when you know you have cybersecurity and GRC problems but do not know what kind of help you need.

How Do We Know Whether the Fix Worked?

Look for outcomes such as:

• higher platform adoption;
• less spreadsheet dependence;
• less duplicate work;
• clearer control ownership;
• better framework reuse;
• more reliable evidence;
• better findings management;
• better risk reporting;
• less manual administration;
• and fewer audit fire drills.

See how to determine whether a Cyber GRC program is actually working.

How Hotman Group Approaches GRC Platform Problems

Hotman Group does not assume a struggling GRC platform should automatically be replaced.

HG first diagnoses the environment.

That may include:

• platform capability;
• configuration;
• implementation;
• control architecture;
• framework design;
• ownership;
• evidence;
• risk;
• findings;
• workflows;
• integrations;
• reporting;
• administration;
• and adoption.

Hotman Group can then help:

• simplify the program;
• redesign controls;
• clean data;
• improve mappings;
• fix workflows;
• improve evidence processes;
• reconfigure risk;
• improve reporting;
• reimplement the platform;
• administer the environment;
• or support replacement where necessary.

Why a GRC Platform Problem Is Often Bigger Than Software

GRC technology sits at the intersection of:

• risk;
• requirements;
• controls;
• evidence;
• ownership;
• findings;
• remediation;
• and reporting.

If those elements are poorly structured, the platform exposes the problem.

Sometimes it also amplifies it.

The Larger Philosophy Behind Fixing GRC Technology

Cybersecurity organizations often respond to an ineffective tool by buying another tool.

Sometimes replacement is necessary.

Sometimes the organization is about to move the same design problems into another platform.

Cheri Hotman's forthcoming book, Rebuilding Cybersecurity: How to Restore Trust, Leadership, and Real Protection in a Broken System, examines how cybersecurity can accumulate technologies and processes without fixing the underlying accountability and operating problems.

A struggling GRC platform should therefore be treated as a diagnostic opportunity.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is our GRC platform not working?

Common causes include poor implementation, duplicate controls, weak workflows, unclear ownership, unreliable data, ineffective integrations, low adoption, excessive administration or a Cyber GRC operating model the platform was never designed to support.

Should we replace a GRC platform that users hate?

Not automatically. First determine whether the problem is product fit, usability, configuration, workflow, data quality, training or the underlying program design.

Why are we still using spreadsheets after buying a GRC platform?

Common causes include incomplete implementation, missing functionality, poor reporting, low trust, difficult workflows or failure to retire the old spreadsheet processes.

Can a GRC platform be reimplemented instead of replaced?

Yes. If the product is capable but the original implementation is poor, redesigning and reimplementing the environment may be more practical than replacing the software.

When should we replace a GRC platform?

Replacement may make sense when the product has critical functionality, scalability, integration, administration, pricing or architecture limitations that cannot reasonably support the organization's current or future operating model.

Can Hotman Group assess why our GRC platform is failing?

Yes. Hotman Group can evaluate the platform, implementation, controls, frameworks, ownership, evidence, risk, workflows, integrations, reporting, administration and broader Cyber GRC operating model.

Can Hotman Group fix the platform instead of replacing it?

Yes. Where the existing platform remains a good fit, HG can help redesign, reconfigure, clean, reimplement and operate the environment rather than recommending unnecessary replacement.

Can Hotman Group help us replace the platform if replacement is necessary?

Yes. HG can help define requirements, evaluate alternative platforms, support vendor-neutral selection, plan migration and implement the replacement environment.

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.

HG helps organizations diagnose why GRC technology is not producing the expected value and distinguish software limitations from implementation, process, ownership and operating-model problems.

Hotman Group can help optimize, reimplement, administer or replace GRC platforms and improve the underlying Cyber GRC program the technology is intended to support.

Learn more about what Hotman Group is and the cybersecurity and Cyber GRC problems HG solves.