• Jump to Left Menu
  • Jump to Right Menu
  • Jump to Main Content
  • Jump to Footer
  • Accessibility Page
IT-Director.com Logo

 

Main navigation - go to a section of this website:

  • ARCHIVE
  • PAPERS
  • EVENTS
  • NEWSWIRE
  • BLOGS

  

Register | Login to Member's Area

 
 
DOMAINS
  • Enterprise
  • SME
  • Business Issues
  • Technology
  • Services
  • Channels
FEATURED EVENTS
  • Information Process Quality Improvement
    19th March - 21st March
    London, United Kingdom
  • Convergence Summit North 2012
    17th April - 18th April
    Manchester, United Kingdom
POPULAR PAPERS
  • Best practices for cloud security by Bloor Research
USEFUL LINKS
  • Last 7 Days
  • Archives
  • Top Articles
SHARE THIS PAGE
  • Delicious Icon Delicious
  • Digg Icon Digg
  • reddit Icon reddit
  • Facebook Icon Facebook
  • StumbleUpon Icon StumbleUpon
CONTENT FEED

Sitewide
RSS Feed:

RSS Icon

What is RSS?

RANDOM QUOTE
Famous Slights - "Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny." - Kin Hubbard

PAGE TOOLS
  • Request Reprints
  • Tell A Friend
  • Contact Author
RECENT POSTS
  • BCS CMSG Conference 2012
  • Business process automation - the business fights back?
  • IBM Rational to acquire virtualised testing environment.
  • Newest but not bestest?
  • SAM Revisted
  • Configuration Management or Versioning?
ADVERTISEMENT
BLOG ARCHIVE
  • February, 2012
  • January, 2012
  • December, 2011
  • November, 2011
  • September, 2011
  • August, 2011
  • July, 2011
  • June, 2011
  • May, 2011
  • April, 2011
  • March, 2011
  • February, 2011
Blogs > The Norfolk Punt

Farewell to GRC; bring on Good Governance

David Norfolk By: David Norfolk, Practice Leader - Development, Bloor Research
Published: 1st September 2010
Copyright Bloor Research © 2010
Logo for Bloor Research

I'm deeply interested in governance, but I've always felt that GRC ("Governance Risk and Compliance") is a bit of a dead end. It often seems to focus purely on technology and in enforcing the letter of the regulations rather than on the spirit of good governance. It is too often seen as purely a cost, delivering no business benefit apart from it being allowed to continue operating (which is not to be sneezed at, of course) and is often used as a way of selling technology which promises to deliver governance, risk management and compliance without any need for real cultural change or management input (and I'm very cynical about that possibility). As an indicator of its essential irrelevance, GRC often excludes fraud from its scope, yet fraud, often by employees, is far from uncommon and can suck the life blood out of an organisation over many years!

No, I am all in favour of good governance, of managing risk and of complying with all regulations that you are legally obligated to comply with—and with any optional initiatives or standards that deliver real business benefit (and no others)—but GRC often strikes me as, in practice, a way of avoiding having to think about all that. I suspect the conversation can go something like:

CEO: "Do we have good GRC in place?";

Minion: "Yes, we do indeed, we spent £xxxk on GRC products last year and the %%% department was complaining only last week that it lost several sales because of all the controls we are enforcing - can I have my GRC-related bonus now please, before we start it all over again for the next inspection?".

With good governance, compliance is a continuing state of the business; but, when done badly, you are only compliant on the day of inspection and each inspection requires an expensive repeat of the whole compliance exercise

These thoughts are prompted partly by my starting on a revision of my book on IT Governance. This is necessitated by the need to take account of all the mergers and acquisitions in the industry that affect the practical examples it mentions and, since the work is predicated on the idea that IT governance is a business and cultural issue, rather than a technology one, I now rather wish I'd left all technology references out! The technology vendors have changed, the issues haven't. However, technology has a place—in enabling good governance, once you have commitment to good governance and an emerging governance culture in place.

I still like the definition of IT Governance I use in that book:

IT Governance is that part of corporate governance in general which ensures that automated systems contribute effectively to the business goals of an organization; that IT-related risk is adequately identified and managed (mitigated, transferred or accepted); and that automated information systems (including financial reporting and audit systems) provide a ‘true picture' of the operation of the business.

The place of technology in governance is largely in managing policies, enforcement and metrics. For example, we need to measure the fiscal and societal outcomes of automated business systems, so that we know whether they do, in fact, "contribute effectively to the business goals of [the] organization"; and this means using the sort of analytics and optimisation tools the business uses, but on IT operational data and systems.

Nowadays, some firms, such as MetaCompliance, do sell "compliance management tools" (for want of a better description) that you might actually find useful as part of a holistic governance initiative (including fraud management). But governance isn't simply a new silo and a new set of silo'd tools to buy. It should be a fundamental part of of how the business operates and, for example, if you don't know what you have, who's using it, how it's configured and where it's running, governance generally (and security, risk management, regulatory and legal compliance and all those good things in particular) are doomed to expensive failure. Which is probably why my next book, co-authored with noted CM expert Shirley Lacy and due out in September, is all about Configuration Management. 

Reader Comments

The messages above were all contributed by IT-Director.com readers. Whilst we take care to remove any posts deemed inappropriate, we can take no responsibility for these comments. If you would like a comment removed please contact our editorial team.

We automatically stop accepting comments 180 days after a post is published. If you would like to know more about this subject, please contact us and we'll try to help.



  • Report errors / Make Suggestions
  • | Site Map
  • | Terms of Use
  • | Privacy

Published by: IT Analysis Communications Ltd.
T: +44 (0)190 888 0760 | F: +44 (0)190 888 0761