You know that moment when your "single source of truth" is split between 3 Google Drives, 12 Slack channels, and that one spreadsheet where you get access denied because the owner left?

Alex*, a security analyst at a growing fintech, lived this nightmare during their audit. Two days hunting for access review evidence that existed somewhere in the digital ether.

.

..

…

"Ask Sarah about that folder," the compliance manager suggested.

"Sarah left six months ago,"

Alex replied. "Then we're in trouble."

While their engineering team had meticulously architected their infrastructure with well-defined interfaces and data flows.

Their GRC program had evolved without any architectural planning at all - just disconnected tools collecting disconnected evidence.

When your risk data, compliance evidence, and security findings live in separate worlds with no shared taxonomy or information flows, you're building security on a foundation of sand.

Here's how to architect your GRC program properly before trying to engineer it.

*Alex is fictional, but let's be honest—we all know Alex. Heck you might even be Alex!

Why It Matters 🔍

The why: the core problem this solves and why you should care

Let's be real - traditional GRC doesn't scale with modern business needs.

Your engineering team ships code multiple times a day, but your GRC program runs on annual cycles.

Your infrastructure scales automatically, but your compliance evidence collection still depends on the intern remembering to take screenshots.

Your product has comprehensive automated testing, but your controls are verified whenever auditors decide to pencil you in.

This misalignment isn't just inefficient—it's dangerous. 

By the time traditional GRC processes document your environment, that environment has already changed three times.

You're left with beautiful compliance reports describing security controls that no longer exist, protecting systems that have been redesigned, against threats that have evolved.

The gap between security reality and compliance documentation is where breaches hide and executives get blindsided.

It's time to bridge that gap with proper architecture.

Strategic Framework 🧩

The what: The conceptual approach broken down into 3 main principles

Here's the uncomfortable truth: You can't engineer what you haven't designed. The GRC Engineering hype train is exciting, but without solid architecture as your foundation, you're just automating chaos.

Architecture Precedes Automation

GRC Architecture is the prerequisite to GRC Engineering. Think of it as your infrastructure-as-code template before you start deploying actual resources.

When your GRC team grows and specialises, you end up with dangerous silos that kill efficiency.

You wouldn't build a house without blueprints, yet we often try to engineer GRC programs without proper architectural design.

This foundation ensures that whatever automation you build serves a coherent purpose rather than just making broken processes faster.

Unified Language Creates Cohesion

Risk and Compliance absolutely need to speak the same language.

If your risk register isn't related to audit findings, which are unrelated to security awareness, which are unrelated to control tests, your program becomes a collection of disconnected activities rather than a unified system.

Creating a common taxonomy means that "high risk" means the same thing to your CISO as it does to your auditors and engineers.

This shared understanding is what enables teams to work together toward common security objectives instead of optimising for their own metrics.

Information Flows Define Effectiveness

The core of GRC architecture isn't your controls or your tools—it's your information flows.

How data moves between risk, compliance, engineering, and leadership determines whether your program drives action or just generates documentation.

Well-designed information flows ensure that:

→ security findings become risk data

→ risk data informs compliance efforts

→ compliance evidence demonstrates real security improvements

Without these flows, each team operates in isolation, creating the all-too-common disconnect between security reality and compliance documentation.

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH (MAYBE YOU?)

Interested in partnering with the GRC Engineer?

Your product, your brand, your collaterals, shared with a highly qualified audience of hundreds of GRC/security leaders and experienced practitioners.

Welcome offers will end soon, grab a spot while you can.

Execution Blueprint 🛠️

The how: 3 practical steps to put this strategy into action at your organisation

Map Your Information Ecosystem

Start by diagramming how data currently moves between teams.

• Where are the bottlenecks?

• Where does context get lost?

• Where do you duplicate efforts?

This visual representation becomes your blueprint for improvement. Create a literal map—on a whiteboard, in a diagram tool, or even on paper—showing how risk data, compliance evidence, security findings, and remediation activities currently flow (or don't flow) between teams.

Identify the following:

• Manual handoffs

• Translation points

• Dead ends where valuable information stops moving

This map becomes your baseline for improvement and helps identify your highest-priority architectural changes.

Here's what a (very) simplified information flow might look like in a properly architected GRC program:

Establish a Unified Data Model

Controls, risks, findings, and evidence should all connect in a coherent system. Define a common taxonomy that works across teams.

• What's a "critical" risk?

• What's a "high-priority" finding?

When everyone uses the same language, integration becomes possible.

Your unified data model should define the relationships between these entities: controls mitigate risks, evidence demonstrates controls, findings indicate control failures, and so on.

This model becomes the schema for your GRC platform, whether it's a commercial tool or something you build internally.

Define Clear Team Interfaces

Design the touch points between teams as formal interfaces.

• How does engineering push information to GRC?

• How does GRC pull from engineering?

These interfaces are what you'll eventually automate, but first, you need to clearly define them. Document the inputs and outputs for each team:

• What information they need?

• What information they produce?

• In what format?

These interfaces act like APIs between human systems, creating clear expectations and removing ambiguity. Once defined, these interfaces become natural candidates for automation, whether through actual APIs or through standardised processes.

Well-designed interfaces reduce friction between teams and make compliance feel like a natural extension of engineering rather than an imposed burden.

Remember: GRC Engineering isn't about tools - it's about architecture and systems thinking first.

Reading Queue 📖

The learn: This week's resource to dive deeper on the topic

During my chat with Raj on the Security & GRC Decoded podcast, we touched specifically on the concept of GRC Architecture towards the end, have a listen!

That’s all for this week’s issue, folks!

If you enjoyed it, you might also enjoy:

• My spicier takes on LinkedIn [/in/ayoubfandi]

• Listening to the GRC Engineering Podcast 

  • Spotify

  • Youtube

  • Apple Podcasts

See you next week!