A silo'd approach to information management—with each department or division jealously protecting its IT information assets—is common in a large organisation. There may be some security benefits in this structure, but appropriate information from each department has to be made available to the central management systems.
A similar silo'd situation arises in regard to corporate governance, risk and compliance (GRC) tasks. GRC needs to pervade the whole enterprise to be efficient and effective, with a silo'd approach generally to the detriment of its functioning.
This is typically exacerbated by a series of overlapping functions. Although titles vary, there is nowadays commonly the equivalent of a chief risk officer (CRO), chief finance officer (CFO), chief compliance officer (CCO), security manager, and an internal audit manager function—and, somewhere in the middle of this, because everything nowadays revolves around IT systems, the CIO.
Each of these will be backed by a group of people and systems—who are all after some of the same information (mixed with some specific to their needs alone), but presented in the way they are used to using it, historically different for each. Nor is any one them going to roll over and change to fit software for one of the other functions; this will not give them what they need in the way that they want it.
A knock-on effect of the silo'd approach is that each group will typically gather this common information from other departments separately. Where this means other departments need to complete questionnaires and complying with assessment requests, those departments could be wasting time gathering overlapping information and repeating answers on forms for one or other of them.
According to Gordon Burnes, VP of sales and marketing at GRC software supplier OpenPages, one enterprise the company dealt with was using no less than 40 different solutions at once. Whatever else this achieved, it certainly did not make for good governance. "Assessment fatigue from constantly supplying information means quality goes down," Burnes told me.
Unsurprisingly, OpenPages believes it has cracked the problem. It has certainly come face to face with it in many big-named enterprises which it can name among around 250 customers in the US and elsewhere. The principle OpenPages uses is simple enough but that does not mean it is easy to do.
OpenPages (version 5.5 recently released) uses a central repository for all risk and compliance data, and this includes frameworks, libraries, policies, entities, processes and accounts. So the repository can hold all the information—both quantitative and qualitative—that all the GRC-affected departments normally collect.
Parameters are set for each piece of collected data to denote which departments need it and which do not—immediately revealing the potential for consolidation, including consolidation of common activities such as the assessments, into a single platform which is process-driven. A flexible front end means each compliance or risk group can view the information in the format it prefers (even down to one department using "A, B, C" and another "1, 2, 3" for the same information).
Probably the biggest benefit of this approach is that it is adaptable to fit the existing company risk and compliance methodology; risk assessments, for instance, can be applied at any enterprise level. Risk and compliance management can then be integrated into the everyday business processes with the minimum of disruption—and the new software can be gradually implemented over time.
I am sure most serious GRC software vendors will ultimately conclude this is the most practical approach to go for the large enterprises. (Where other software does this it should then only be a matter of features, functionality and benefits, despite what major vendor consultancies who advise on GRC may say.) However, there is one other thing that is needed in order to make this happen.
"It needs a mandated approach," said Burnes. In other words, this needs to be driven with top-down authority. It needs the CEO's blessing and possibly more than that to make sure the CFO, CRO, CCO et al all give it whole-hearted support, and the CIO gives priority to its implementation.
In the end, this has to be done top-down and enterprise-wide—or the business will be left with even more exposure to risk and legal sanction for non-compliance than it is already.