Let’s start our article with a small question.
Why should GRC platforms have a flexible infrastructure and be built on a simple model?
Of course, there are several reasons to justify the answer to this question. Chief among these is that GRC processes, or rather management processes, require frequent changes in institutions. Because organizations have a constantly changing, developing or regressing structure.
The second important reason is that the governance processes are different in each institution. You should never take a GRC platform and implement it exactly. You take a Linux server and set it up exactly, or you install and configure a firewall, but it is necessary to shake hands to talk about how the long process should be in governance systems. So the adaptation change rate is much higher.
It is for these reasons that GRC platforms should have a flexible structure. There should be no need to re-write the code to add fields to the screens, add reports, or add tables and columns, and the dependency on the software development process should be minimized.
These are the reasons underlying the rapid progress of Low Code platformers in the recent period.
On the other hand, let’s not name names, but there are platforms in the industry that meet almost all your needs. However, most institutions are faced with a redundant situation when it comes to buying such comprehensive systems and starting to use them immediately. This poses a problem in terms of both cost and applicability. You pay a lot of money for a system that is many times larger than you need, and while using it, you increase your bureaucracy with many process steps that you do not need.
This poses a serious problem for institutions to provide such platforms. That’s why GRC projects should start with the simplest scope and model and be able to expand on the Low Code platform as needed. It will provide significant benefits to optimization in terms of both application scope and license cost.
While it is possible to make GRC adaptation projects that can be completed in a month or two for medium-sized corporate information systems, why should you incur huge costs with projects that take 6 months, a year or more? In summary, the project roadmap should actually be:
In its most basic form;
- Asset Management Module
- Legislation Management Module
- Audit and Follow-up Module,
Later on, the same platform as needed;
- Risk Management Module
- Performance Management Module
- Strategic Planning Module
Such modules can be commissioned as well as detailed and developed in the first three modules. But the wheel should be able to turn in its simplest form within a month or two.
The success of GRC projects actually lies at this point. Let’s call it Security GRC, if you want BT GRC or Corporate GRC, the result will always be the same.
In conclusion, we can say that GRC projects should start with the simplest scope possible and the platform should be flexible. Over time, the extensional structure should be enlarged. Here is the secret of our success.
