A couple of months ago, a CISO at a £2B company told me: "We spent £300K on GRC automation. Our dashboard looks incredible. But somehow, audit prep still takes three months, and my engineers still treat compliance like a disease they might catch."

Sound familiar?

This same organisation proudly showcased their "GRC Engineering transformation": automated evidence collection, real-time dashboards, API integrations with dozens of tools. Impressive technical architecture. Sophisticated workflows.

Yet when I asked the simple question: "Are any of your insights driving more impact than faster time-to-audit?”, confidence level drop pretty quick.

They had confused activity with progress. Automation with maturity. Tools with transformation.

This scenario plays out everywhere. Organisations invest heavily in GRC technology whilst operating at the maturity level of a startup using spreadsheets. The tools get sophisticated, but the programme remains fundamentally reactive.

The result? Expensive solutions accelerating broken processes.

Most organisations overestimate their GRC maturity by 1-2 levels. They think they're strategic when they're still operational. They believe they're engineering when they're just scripting.

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH

Security teams don’t gamble on compliance. Neither do we.

Vendict delivers hallucination-free, source-backed answers for security questionnaires, trust centers, and third-party risk assessments. Replace uncertainty with guaranteed accuracy.

August offer: Try it risk-free. Book your demo today.

Claim Offer

Why It Matters 🔍

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

80% of organisations claiming "GRC Engineering" are actually running sophisticated documentation theatre.

I see this constantly in my conversations with GRC leaders: "We've automated everything, but somehow audit prep still takes three months and our engineers still ignore our control requirements."

The problem isn't technical capability, it's maturity misdiagnosis. Believe it or not, automation is often the easy part.

Most GRC teams operate under three dangerous assumptions: "We automated screenshots, so we're doing GRC Engineering" (Script Kidding mentality), "Our GRC platform handles everything" (Tool-first thinking), and "Compliance efficiency equals programme maturity" (Output obsession).

The Maturity Paradox: The organisations that most need this assessment are the least likely to use it honestly. Level 1 organisations know they need help. Level 4 organisations use assessments strategically. It's the Level 2-3 organisations trapped between automation and transformation that overestimate their capabilities most dramatically.

Your GRC vendor's demo showed Level 4 capabilities, your executive presentation claimed Level 3 achievements, but your engineers know you're still operating at Level 2. This assessment gap isn't just embarrassing—it's actively dangerous to your security posture.

Because here's what the most successful programmes understand: GRC Engineering isn't about tools, it's about systematically evolving from compliance and risk theatre to strategic business enablement.

# The GRC Maturity Self-Deception Algorithm
class GRCMaturityAssessment:
    def __init__(self, organization_name):
        self.organization = organization_name
        self.actual_level = 1.5  # Everyone starts here, no exceptions
        self.ego_multiplier = 2.3  # Industry standard delusion factor
        
    def self_reported_maturity(self):
        inflated_score = self.actual_level * self.ego_multiplier
        if "automated" in self.recent_purchases:
            inflated_score += 1.0  # Automation = maturity, obviously
        return min(inflated_score, 4.0)  # Cap the delusion
    
    def reality_check(self):
        if self.evidence_collection == "API calls" and self.business_outcomes == "undefined":
            return "Level 2: Script Kidding Detected"
        if self.executive_trust_score < 3:
            return "Level 1: Excel Warrior (And That's OK!)"
        if self.engineers_respond_positively() and self.revenue_impact > 0:
            return "Level 4: Actual Unicorn (Please teach us)"
            
    def vendor_translator(self, marketing_speak):
        translations = {
            "AI-powered GRC": "We added a ChatGPT API call",
            "Enterprise-ready": "It works on our demo environment",
            "Revolutionary platform": "Excel with a login screen"
        }
        return translations.get(marketing_speak, "Probably just JIRA with themes")

# Usage
my_org = GRCMaturityAssessment("Definitely-Not-Level-1 Corp")
print(f"What we think: Level {my_org.self_reported_maturity()}")
print(f"What auditors find: {my_org.reality_check()}")
# Output: "Level 3.45" vs "Level 2: Script Kidding Detected"

Strategic Framework 🧩

The what: The 4-level GRC Engineering Maturity Model broken down

Level 1: Survivors (Manual Documentation)

Time Investment: 80% administrative, 20% strategic
Business Value: Checkbox completion
Strategic Focus: Surviving audits

Characteristics: Spreadsheet-based evidence collection and risk registers, screenshot documentation for audit compliance, manual policy reviews and updates, plus reactive compliance approach with no systematic methodology.

Assessment Criteria: Evidence collection relies on manual processes with email-based coordination. Control monitoring follows periodic, checklist-driven approaches. Stakeholder coordination involves ad-hoc requests and follow-ups. Human API quality means engineers see GRC as interruption source. Success depends heavily on building bridges with key stakeholders rather than technical capabilities.

Sales Enablement: Basic compliance badges on website, SOC 2 reports available upon request for enterprise deals.

💬 "Your CISO says": "Can we get through this audit without any findings? And please don't bother engineering until we absolutely have to."

❝

💡If your risk register lives in Excel and your engineers avoid your emails, you're here. And that's fine, everyone starts somewhere.

Level 2: Automators (Basic Automation)

Time Investment: 40% administrative, 30% maintenance, 30% strategic
Business Value: Process efficiency
Strategic Focus: Reducing manual toil

Characteristics: Simple API calls for evidence collection, basic policy-as-code implementations, automated screenshot replacement, and tool-focused rather than outcome-focused approach.

Common Pitfalls include maintenance overhead exceeding manual processes, engineering team resistance to production deployment, automation without business outcome improvement, and technical solutions to organisational problems.

Assessment Criteria: Automation scope covers evidence collection only versus strategic insights. Technical debt accumulation creates maintenance burden. Integration complexity involves point solutions versus systematic approach. Value creation focuses on efficiency versus effectiveness. Most organisations at this level need guidance on unlocking hidden value in their current GRC platform rather than buying new tools.

Sales Enablement: Trust center with real-time compliance status, automated security questionnaire responses, faster prospect onboarding through streamlined compliance verification.

💬 "Your CISO says": "Great job automating that evidence collection! Now can you tell me if our risk exposure has changed since last month?"

❝

💡If you've automated evidence collection but still can't answer "Are we actually more secure than last quarter?" with data, you're here.

Level 3: Orchestrators (Systematic Integration)

Time Investment: 40% implementation, 60% strategic
Business Value: Risk reduction and business enablement
Strategic Focus: Organisational transformation

Characteristics: Control orchestration across teams and systems, strategic stakeholder coordination across numerous teams, systematic risk reduction measurement and reporting, plus business value demonstration beyond audit satisfaction.

Implementation Requirements include Technical Foundations with a Central data layer architecture, Human API through standardised interfaces between GRC and engineering teams, Control Orchestration via automated coordination of security controls, and Strategic Metrics with risk reduction measurement capabilities. This level requires transitioning from silos to systems and implementing GRC as a strategic product rather than compliance project.

Assessment Criteria: Control effectiveness shows measurable improvement, not just compliance. Cross-functional collaboration demonstrates engineering partnership quality. Risk measurement provides quantifiable risk reduction capabilities. Business integration creates strategic value and executive trust.

Sales Enablement: Competitive security posture stories, compliance capabilities that differentiate in RFPs, security architecture that enables new market entry faster and more reliably.

💬 "Your CISO says": "Your risk insights are helping us make better security investment decisions. Now, how do we leverage this competitive advantage?"

❝

💡If engineers respect your input and executives use your risk insights for strategic decisions, you're approaching this level.

Level 4: Strategists (Security Decision Engine)

Time Investment: 20% operational, 80% strategic
Business Value: Security intelligence and organisational effectiveness
Strategic Focus: Security decision leadership

Characteristics: GRC serves as central nervous system for security decision-making, systematic risk intelligence that drives security resource allocation, proactive security programme coordination across all domains, plus predictive risk insights that anticipate threats before they materialise.

Strategic Capabilities encompass security portfolio management using GRC data for investment decisions, cross-programme orchestration where GRC insights inform AppSec and infrastructure priorities, predictive risk intelligence that identifies emerging threats through control effectiveness trends, and executive security advisory where CISO-level decisions rely on GRC analysis.

Assessment Criteria: Security strategy integration means GRC data drives security investment allocation. Cross-programme influence shows AppSec, infrastructure, and IR teams using GRC insights for prioritisation. Predictive intelligence demonstrates early threat identification through control effectiveness patterns. Executive advisory indicates CISO relies on GRC analysis for strategic security decisions. This level often benefits from building the right technical foundations and implementing cyber risk quantification methodologies.

Sales Enablement: Security posture becomes core brand differentiator, compliance architecture enables strategic market expansion, GRC intelligence supports M&A due diligence and integration.

💬 "Your CISO says": "Your analysis shows we should prioritise container security over network monitoring this quarter. Also, that vendor risk spike you flagged just helped us avoid a supply chain incident."

❝

💡If your GRC programme helps drive meaningful revenue and influences strategic business decisions above and beyond security, you've reached this level.

Want to sponsor the GRC revolution?

The middle spot still has a lot of space so if you’re interested, now is the time! ~65% open rates and high-CTR by industry standards aren’t even the reasons why should you work with the GRC Engineer.

Helping propel the revolution in how companies think about GRC and build their programs is the real reason! If you want to showcase your offering to a highly-engaged audience of GRC leaders from the world’s most successful companies, you know what to do.

Reach out!

Execution Blueprint 🛠️

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

Step 1: Complete the GRC Engineering Maturity Assessment

High-Level Self-Assessment Framework (Rate 1-5 for each dimension):

Dimension	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4
Evidence Collection	Manual	Automated	Orchestrated	Strategic
Control Monitoring	Periodic	Continuous	Predictive	Proactive
Engineering Relations	Adversarial	Transactional	Collaborative	Strategic
Executive Alignment	Reporting	Informing	Advising	Influencing
Revenue Impact	Cost Centre	Efficiency	Enabler	Driver

Complete and more detailed Assessment Dimensions:

📊 TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES
Evidence Collection:    Manual → Automated → Orchestrated → Strategic
Control Monitoring:     Periodic → Continuous → Predictive → Proactive
Integration Architecture: Siloed → Connected → Orchestrated → Strategic
Risk Measurement:       Qualitative → Quantitative → Predictive → Strategic

👥 ORGANISATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
Stakeholder Coordination: Ad-hoc → Structured → Partnership → Leadership
Engineering Relationships: Adversarial → Transactional → Collaborative → Strategic
Change Management:      Reactive → Planned → Systematic → Anticipatory
Executive Alignment:    Reporting → Informing → Advising → Influencing

💼 BUSINESS VALUE CREATION
Risk Reduction:         Compliance → Efficiency → Effectiveness → Advantage
Revenue Impact:         Cost Centre → Efficiency → Enabler → Driver
Strategic Influence:    Operational → Tactical → Strategic → Leadership
Market Positioning:     Requirement → Standard → Differentiator → Advantage

Scoring Matrix:

Your Score	Maturity Level	Classification
12-24 points	Level 1	Survivors (Manual Documentation)
25-36 points	Level 2	Automators (Basic Automation)
37-48 points	Level 3	Orchestrators (Systematic Integration)
49-60 points	Level 4	Strategists (Security Decision Engine)

Step 2: Map Your Progression Pathway

Level 1 → 2: Automation Foundation requires a shorter amount of time and limited funds. Success metrics include 50% time savings and 75% error reduction. Focus on replacing manual processes with basic automation, prioritising evidence collection and workflow automation whilst planning central data layer foundation. Consider implementing Git-based policy management for governance modernisation.

Your Progression Roadmap:

┌─ LEVEL 1→2: AUTOMATION FOUNDATION ───────────────────────────┐
│ Timeline: 3-6 months │ Investment: £10-50K │ Success: 50% time reduction │
│ ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████  │
│ Focus: Replace manual processes with basic automation         │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌─ LEVEL 2→3: INTEGRATION & ORCHESTRATION ─────────────────────┐
│ Timeline: 6-12 months │ Investment: £50-200K │ Success: Engineering NPS >7 │
│ ████████████████████████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░  │
│ Focus: Control orchestration + Human API implementation      │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌─ LEVEL 3→4: STRATEGIC BUSINESS INTEGRATION ──────────────────┐
│ Timeline: 12-18 months │ Investment: Strategic │ Success: Revenue impact │
│ ████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░  │
│ Focus: Business strategy integration + competitive advantage │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Level 2 → 3: Integration and Orchestration might take a year or more and will require some deeper thinking. Success metrics target 60% risk reduction measurement and engineering partnership NPS >7. Focus includes control orchestration and Human API implementation, prioritising business value creation and cross-team integration with systematic risk measurement capabilities. Consider GRC team topology decisions and transitioning to GRC product management.

Level 3 → 4: Strategic Business Integration extends over longer periods of time and requires long-term investments. Success metrics include executive trust score >8 and measurable revenue impact. Focus on business strategy integration and competitive advantage, prioritising executive influence and market differentiation through GRC as business enablement platform and security/technical roadmap driver. Success requires mastering executive buy-in techniques and implementing signal vs. noise mental models

Did you enjoy this week's entry?

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 Engineer Podcast

See you next week!

⚙️ The GRC Engineering Maturity Model v1.0