<img src="https://ws.zoominfo.com/pixel/4CagHYMZMRWAjWFEK36G" width="1" height="1" style="display: none;">

The Difference Between GRC and IRM

Three Lies GRC Products Tell Cybersecurity Teams


Know The Difference Between GRC Products & IRM

Governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) products have been the predominant method for risk management and compliance programs to date. However, with the rise of integrated risk management (IRM) practices, we have seen the needs of information security leaders and teams shift. The traditional segregation of duties across cybersecurity programs, from internal audit management to business continuity management to third party risk management, led to the development of the modular GRC platforms that we see today, which is no longer what’s required for information security teams to succeed. In today’s climate, where the Board is getting smarter on cyber and demanding more insight and cybersecurity leaders are expected to manage risk and deliver metrics that are of value to the rest of the C-suite, GRC software solutions are failing large enterprises. 

Yet, GRC solutions that were once leaders in Gartner’s Magic Quadrant - IBM OpenPages, RSA Archer, and SAI Global - are touting themselves as IRM. Solutions that enable integrated risk management are fundamentally different from the modular approach that legacy governance, risk management, and compliance platforms and to support these new practices the products would need to be rebuilt from the ground up. Read more about the three lies that GRC is telling you. 

In this whitepaper you’ll learn: 

  • How GRC platforms leverage the sunk-cost fallacy to keep cybersecurity programs using their products when it isn’t meeting their needs 
  • How GRC platforms convince information security teams to use a tool that makes their programs more complex, not simplify it 
  • What the differences are between GRC tools and integrated risk management and why GRC tools cannot enable IRM