Post Go-Live Reality: Early Warning Signs Your GRC System Is Underperforming

Implementing a GRC system is a major investment in technology, processes, and culture. Yet many organisations discover that, a few months after go-live, the system isn’t delivering the expected value. The consequences aren’t just financial – as compliance gaps could lead to increased regulatory scrutiny:

• Under CPS 220 and CPS 230, APRA expects robust Risk Management Information Systems (RMIS) that support timely and accurate reporting.

This isn’t just confined to the Prudential Regulator, as multiple regulators across other jurisdictions continue to demand more from Risk & Compliance teams:

• ASIC requires robust compliance and conduct controls
• AUSTRAC expects systems for financial crime, AML/CTF monitoring, and reporting
• Global bodies like the SEC (U.S.), FCA (UK), and EBA (Europe) enforce integrated risk management, operational resilience, and reporting obligations
• Sector-specific regulators such as the TGA (health), AEMO/AER (energy), and prudential authorities in finance also demand evidence of controlled, auditable processes

This non-exhaustive list highlights the regulatory challenge that modern day organisations face and reinforce the need for mature GRC platforms. So when your GRC system underperforms – it is important to identify issues early and ensure your GRC platform performs from day 1.

Here are some early warning signs to look out for:

1. Low User Adoption and Engagement

Even the most advanced GRC platform fails if users don’t engage with it consistently. Low adoption can manifest as minimal logins, incomplete workflows, or continued reliance on spreadsheets and emails.

User engagement is a critical predictor of system success. Poor adoption leads to gaps in risk reporting, incomplete audit trails, and misalignment between business and technology.

Actions:

1. Conduct targeted user training sessions and refresher workshops.
2. Implement a communication plan highlighting benefits and quick wins.
3. Introduce dashboards and KPIs to show users how their input drives decision-making.

2. Clunky GRC interface or Inefficient Workflows

GRC systems are intended to streamline processes, but poorly configured workflows or overly complex approval steps can frustrate users and slow operations.

Inefficient workflows increase errors, reduce efficiency, and discourage use. When workflows don’t align with how the business actually operates, staff may bypass the system or duplicate work, undermining the platform’s value.

Actions:

1. Review and map existing business processes against system workflows.
2. Simplify approval chains and automate repetitive tasks.
3. Engage key users to test revised workflows before full rollout.

3. Poor Data Quality and Reporting

A GRC system is only as effective as the data it contains. Inconsistent data entry, missing fields, or errors in migrated data can lead to inaccurate dashboards and misleading reports.

Decision-makers rely on GRC systems for insight into enterprise risks. Poor data quality compromises board reporting, regulatory compliance, and risk visibility.

Actions:

1. Perform a data cleansing and standardisation exercise.
2. Implement mandatory fields, validation rules, and automation to reduce errors.
3. Schedule regular audits and monitoring of data quality metrics.

4. Integration and GRC System Performance Issues

Post-go-live, integration with existing systems such as HR, incident management, and policy libraries may be incomplete or unstable. System slowdowns or errors can frustrate users and reduce confidence.

Seamless integration is essential for a single source of truth across governance, risk, and compliance functions. Poor integration reduces visibility, introduces duplicate data, and increases operational risk.

Actions:

1. Conduct a full integration review to identify gaps or conflicts.
2. Optimise data flow between systems and implement automation where possible.
3. Monitor performance and error logs to proactively resolve issues.

5. Misalignment with Risk and Compliance Objectives

Sometimes, the system delivers outputs, but they don’t align with the organisation’s risk frameworks, reporting requirements, or regulatory expectations. Misalignment leads to wasted investment, reporting gaps, and potential non-compliance.

Actions:

1. Reassess system configuration against risk and compliance frameworks.
2. Adjust reporting templates and dashboards to align with board and regulator needs.
3. Conduct workshops with key stakeholders to ensure outputs meet operational and strategic objectives.

Key Takeaway

Post-go-live issues are common but preventable if organisations proactively monitor adoption, workflows, data quality, integration, and alignment. Addressing these early ensures the GRC system delivers real insights, strengthens governance, and meets regulatory expectations. An early Post-Implementation Review identifies misalignments and provides actionable recommendations.

How InConsult Bridges the GRC Gap

Want your GRC system to deliver real value? Discover InConsult’s GRC Assurance and Optimisation services.

As risk, governance, compliance, and audit practitioners, InConsult specialises in GRC Post-Implementation Reviews. We help organisations identify red flags, assess system effectiveness, and implement improvement plans. Our independent guidance ensures your GRC system becomes a reliable tool for decision-making, risk oversight, and regulatory compliance — quickly turning underperformance into opportunity.

Bring people, systems and processes together to better manage risk and compliance, contact us to discuss your GRC needs.