What are the main 10 features requested in a GRC platform?
Sort by:
typo... I am now in a position to start over,
I’m sorry I’m joining this late and hope my response is still relevant.<br><br>At a high level, the strategy that worked for me moving from Excel into automation came down to four things:<br><br>1. Preserve what already worked, like shared taxonomies and common language<br>2. Build the data model before automating workflow<br>3. Reduce fatigue by reusing evidence and streamlining reviews<br>4. Keep executives engaged with clear, simple visualizations<br><br>In my experience working with healthcare and other complex sectors, the transition always started with making sure the taxonomy we had built in Excel carried forward. In one program, we had hundreds of risks gathered through interviews, and the only way to make it sustainable was to structure that shared language in a proper data model first. Once that foundation was clear, the rest of the automation made sense.<br><br>I also learned the hard way that if you automate workflow too early, things can break quickly. When processes sat on top of an unstable structure, adoption collapsed. Once we built relationships between services, processes, risks, and controls early, automation became far more durable and easier for everyone to engage with.<br><br>Evidence reuse was another turning point. Attaching evidence once and reusing it across compliance, audit, and privacy not only reduced fatigue but also built trust in the system. Finally, I found that executives who would never open a 600-line spreadsheet did engage with dashboards that highlighted trends, tolerances, and outliers at a glance.<br><br>The real shift was when the platform moved from being “a tool for risk managers” to something accessible to audit, compliance, security, and business leaders all at once. That was when collaboration actually scaled beyond Excel.
I agree with the input from Loretta and Wayne. Some additional thoughts on requirements/suggestions, based on experiences with multiplate GRC platforms:
1. Integration with enterprise reporting platforms – in most cases native GRC reporting capabilities will be less robust than what you will be able to do with Tableau or similar systems. If you have leaders that are used to viewing reporting in a standardized tool, having them go to a GRC tool may result in a negative user experience (relatively). Using your enterprise reporting standard to visualize GRC outputs may reduce this.
2. Ability to enable your business processes using out-of-the-box or configured capabilities, vs. requiring customization/coding. If you can enable your processes using configuration, that will make future maintenance (and repair) easier and less resource intensive. The downside is that you may need to make more process adjustments to align with the capabilities of the tool.
3. Integrations with key “source of truth” systems will help ensure accurate and consistent reference data within your GRC tool. If you must maintain data elements like org structure and employees in your GRC tool, this will create duplicative administrative burden, vs. having real-time integrations with your source systems.
4. User access model that allows robust self-serve capabilities for users, especially super users. If the GRC tool requires developer intervention to handle non-structural updates, such as reference data and bulk data updates, this can underutilize your super-user and developer resources.
5. Ability to edit and save common document types (e.g., Word, PowerPoint, Visio) natively in the GRC tool. Our current tool requires users to save documents locally, edit, then re-upload. For processes (e.g., internal audit reports and workpapers) that require multiple review and update iterations, this is a painful user experience.
6. Ability to manage user submission of evidentiary matter via workflow, vs. via out-of-band email, makes for a more efficient process and ensures that supporting documentation is “attached” to the correct activity (e.g., audits, compliance reviews, etc.). If the tool also allows you to store evidence centrally and reference for multiple uses, this can help reduce “audit/compliance fatigue.”
7. Ability to perform & manage attestation processes (e.g., SOX, conflicts of interest, etc.), avoiding the use of external survey capabilities.
8. Ability to roll forward past period activities to use as a starting point for current period (e.g., rolling forward past period COI results, so that users only need to validate and/or make changes for the current year) and ability to report longitudinally over time so that you can assess progress/regress in areas of interest.
9. Ability to easily export needed data and artifacts in response to external requests, such as for regulators, audits, and the like.
1) Data integration across GRC modules/applications 2) Comprehensive reporting & visualization capabilities 3) Workflow automation to include notification capabilities 4) Consolidated, controlled access roles 4) Centralized processes, risks and controls 5) Risk Assessment 6) Compliance & Regulatory management 7) Policy and Document management 8) BC Management 9) Issue Management/Risk Mitigation 10) KPI, KRI, KCI and Risk Profile Management
A GRC (Governance, Risk, and Compliance) platform typically offers a wide range of features to help organizations manage their governance, risk, and compliance activities effectively. Here are ten commonly found features in a GRC platform:
Risk Management: The ability to identify, assess, and manage risks across the organization, including risk assessment, risk mitigation, and risk monitoring.
Compliance Management: Tools for ensuring compliance with relevant regulations, standards, and internal policies, including compliance monitoring, control testing, and audit management.
Policy Management: The ability to create, distribute, and track policies, procedures, and guidelines, ensuring employees are aware of and adhere to the organization's policies.
Internal Control Management: Features for documenting, testing, and monitoring internal controls to ensure they are effectively designed and operating as intended.
Incident Management: Tools to capture, track, and investigate incidents, such as data breaches, security breaches, compliance violations, or other events that require investigation and remediation.
Audit Management: Capabilities for managing audit activities, including audit planning, scheduling, execution, and reporting, as well as tracking audit findings and remediation activities.
Reporting and Analytics: Robust reporting and analytics capabilities to generate customizable reports, dashboards, and visualizations, providing insights into risk exposure, compliance status, and performance metrics.
Policy and Regulatory Intelligence: The ability to stay up to date with relevant regulations, standards, and industry best practices through automated policy and regulatory updates and alerts.
Workflow and Collaboration: Features for workflow automation, task management, and collaboration, facilitating efficient communication and coordination between different teams and stakeholders involved in GRC processes.
Document Management: Tools for organizing, storing, and retrieving GRC-related documents, ensuring version control, document integrity, and easy access to relevant information.
These features can vary among different GRC platforms, and organizations may prioritize specific functionalitie
Unfortunately, I have seen GRC technology fail Healthcare Systems many times over. I am not in a position to start over, but it has been a few years since I last tried. I am looking for advice on keeping it simple. My critical requirements are around enabling a Shared Enterprise Risk Assessment process to continue. This is a collaboration of Internal Audit, Compliance, Privacy and Information Security. It has been done in Excel to date and has strong shared terms and taxonomies (operational and Compliance). Our goal is to take the rolling inventory of 600+ risks identified in 200+ Executive interviews and turn it into an accessible managed set of risks.