Whether you are looking to implement new GRC software or change an existing GRC platform to something more suited to your needs, there is lots to consider!

Without proper planning and scoping, you may end up with a solution that doesn’t meet the individual requirements of your business, has hidden customisation costs, or doesn’t get the uptake required due to lack of buy-in from leadership and poor staff training.

To make sure your next GRC implementation is a success (or work out where your last one went wrong), check out these 8 crippling pain points of GRC implementation, to make sure you avoid them.

In the modern business world, where doing things holistically is a Board directive, adopting an enterprise-wide approach to managing governance, risk and compliance (GRC) is a no-brainer. Unlike other business philosophies that have come and gone, this is no fad; it is a forward-thinking way of working that has taken root across industries. Unfortunately, organizations often struggle to implement GRC in an integrated and synchronized manner, aligned with business processes and strategic objectives – and it is easy to see why.

A quick check of the global pharmaceutical (pharma) industry’s temperature shows that it is in good health: worth approximately $934.8 billion in 2017, it is estimated to reach over $1,170 billion this year. This encouraging prognosis has been aided by several factors – from rising incomes and enhanced medical infrastructures to rapid advancements in the treatment of chronic diseases and the prevalence of patented products.

We hear a lot about the ‘risk landscape’: a turbulent place where change lurks around almost every corner and variables abound. This powerful metaphor brings to life the need for firms in the financial services sector to navigate through the risks and pitfalls between where they currently are as an enterprise, and where they should be. One event – the global financial crisis – reshaped the topography of the space by changing business conditions and regulatory requirements. Analysts now identify three distinct periods within the financial services risk landscape over the last two decades: