Is Your Compliance Platform Making You Audit-Ready … or Just Busy?

I’ve spent most of my career in IT risk management, which means I tend to look at compliance a little differently than auditors do. My first question is rarely “Will this pass an audit?” and more often “Does this actually reduce risk in a meaningful, sustainable way?”

Those two things should align, but thanks to the way many compliance platforms are used today, they often don’t. And that’s how organizations end up very busy … without actually being very prepared.

What compliance platforms were originally meant to do

Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) platforms were created to help large organizations manage complex risk and compliance programs across teams, systems, and frameworks. At their core, they were about governance – a top-down approach to defining expectations and making sure policies and procedures actually showed up in daily operations. In plain terms, this means making sure people follow the rules, especially when security isn’t their top priority.

These platforms were never intended to magically turn an organization from zero maturity to “fully compliant.” They were meant to support existing programs, not replace the thinking, context, and decision-making that risk management requires.

From tailored risk programs to “out-of-the-box compliance”

Early GRC platforms assumed heavy customization from each customer. Risk models, controls, workflows all had to be tailored, because no two organizations have the same threat landscape, systems, or tolerance for risk. However today’s GRC platform market is full of off-the-shelf compliance platforms promising speed and simplicity. You select a framework, connect some systems, and suddenly you’re on your way. This may sound great, but from a risk perspective, this is where things get dangerous. It’s like giving someone a key to a car without them even knowing how to drive.

Compliance is not one-size-fits-all. When platforms remove customization and context, teams may end up implementing controls that look right on paper but don’t actually address the risks that matter to their organization. Worse, they can create a false sense of security—everything looks green, so everything must be fine.

The GRC Tool Identity Crisis

Modern GRC platforms have expanded well beyond their original intent. Many now try to cover everything, including risk management, vendor management, due diligence questionnaires, continuous monitoring and audit workflows. Some go incredibly broad, offering shallow coverage of many areas. Others zoom in on narrow point solutions that optimize one part of the process while ignoring how risks connect across the organization.

What these tools were meant to provide was oversight and coordination: visibility into timelines, ownership, dependencies, and how different teams contribute to managing risk and compliance obligations. Instead, risk teams often find themselves focused on completing tasks as fast as possible, because the platform rewards completion, not effectiveness. This leads to teams overlooking the end goal of developing and implementing long-term strategies of controls that will scale with the organization.

When speed becomes the enemy of risk management

From a risk management standpoint, one of the biggest red flags is when controls are implemented purely to “get through” an audit or assessment. Short-term, band-aid controls might reduce audit risk, but they often increase operational and security risk over time. They don’t scale and they don’t adapt. Most critically, they rarely hold up when the organization changes with new systems and new vendors, and when new threats arise.

When compliance platforms prioritize speed and efficiency over thoughtful control design, they encourage this behavior. The result is a program that technically meets requirements but doesn’t meaningfully reduce risk.

Continuous monitoring without context isn’t monitoring

Compliance has what I’d call cornerstone activities – best practices that ensure controls stay effective over time. Monitoring should help identify when something drifts out of compliance or no longer aligns with the organization’s risk posture.

But here’s the problem: if you don’t have clarity on audit scope, control ownership, and what will actually be evaluated, what exactly is being monitored? From a risk perspective, alerts without context are just noise. If a platform flags an issue that isn’t tied to your defined risk framework or audit scope, teams either ignore it, or waste time remediating something that doesn’t matter.

True monitoring requires alignment between risk, compliance, and audit expectations. Without that, “continuous compliance” doesn’t reduce risk, it just creates more work.

Taking Your Hands Off the Wheel Creates New Risk

Many platforms now market “hands-off” compliance through automation and AI-driven workflows. As someone who’s managed risk programs, this is where I get concerned.

GRC tools were meant to support informed decision-making, not replace it. When organizations fully delegate compliance and risk management to a system they don’t understand, they introduce a new failure point.

If the tool misses something (or evaluates it incorrectly), who is held accountable, and how quickly would you even know? Blind trust in automation is, in itself, a risk. From an IT risk perspective, that irony is hard to ignore.

Being audit-ready starts with being risk-ready

Being audit-ready shouldn’t be the goal – it should be the outcome of a well-run risk and compliance program.

The best platforms, (including Thoropass, obviously!) don’t try to eliminate human judgment. They help teams stay organized, align controls to real risks, and maintain visibility into what matters most.

If your compliance platform keeps you busy but doesn’t help you understand or reduce risk, it’s worth asking the uncomfortable question:

Are you managing risk, or just managing tasks?

‍