Out-of-the-Box or Tailor-Made? Rethinking Your GRC Tools Strategy

What challenges do companies face when they choose to develop their own software? And why do proven, ready-made systems like AdaptiveGRC so often turn out to be the more effective and predictable choice?

Let’s follow the story of AutoMech Systems. It’s a fictional account—though, in our experience, it’s not far from reality. Any resemblance to actual people or events is purely coincidental… which doesn’t necessarily mean it’s never happened.

The DIY Instinct

AutoMech Systems is a fast-growing company that manufactures and distributes parts for the automotive and machinery industries. Its founder, Marian, built the business from the ground up, guided by a principle he often repeats: “If you want something done right, do it yourself.” That mindset has helped the company hold its own in a competitive market for years.

But new business pressures—tighter just-in-time logistics, higher quality expectations, and growing regulatory and audit demands—prompted AutoMech Systems’ leadership to start considering a GRC system. Two paths emerged: implement a proven, ready-made SaaS solution or build a custom platform in-house or with help from a software provider.

At one meeting, someone made a confident suggestion: “Let’s not buy an off-the-shelf system. We’ll build our own! It’ll be cheaper and fit our needs exactly.” Marian agreed. The IT manager said it would be simple. The operations director saw the risk but chose not to push back. It seemed like a sensible choice at the time—but was it?

What Happens When a GRC System Has No Strategy

The project started off with energy and confidence. Tomek, the IT manager, initiated the first round of analysis and began outlining the system’s architecture. The early designs looked promising—but almost immediately, the team ran into a wave of questions that weren’t so easy to answer.

Scope and Priorities

• Who decides which features are truly essential?
• Which ones can we realistically deliver within the timeline, and which will have to wait?
• Should the system support audit, risk management, and compliance in full from day one?
• What’s the long-term plan for expanding the system?

Process Design

• What should the actual workflows look like inside the tool?
• How do we turn existing tasks (some handled on paper, others in Excel or over email) into structured, digital processes?

Internal Know-How vs. Proven Standards

• Many of the processes the system is supposed to support don’t exist yet. Do we build them from scratch or adopt tried-and-tested frameworks from the industry?
• Who should take responsibility for developing these processes or for sourcing them externally?
• Will relying on external models delay the development of our own system?

Execution Risks

• Can we realistically implement unfamiliar or previously informal processes into a brand-new tool without firsthand experience of using them?
• How do we prevent building a system that ends up misaligned with reality and needs to be rebuilt just to get it right?

Business Impact

• How likely is that outcome and what would it cost to start over?
• What would be the business impact of losing two or three years in the process?

Each department had different expectations. Auditors wanted automated reports—but what exactly should those include? Compliance needed integration with new regulations—but from which source? Management expected intuitive dashboards for a clear overview—but based on what data? Without a clear strategy or oversight, the project began to drift.

A few months in, the IT team realized they weren’t building one system—they were building three. Every department had its own vision, and costs kept rising. It became harder to align all the requirements in a single tool. Splitting the solution into separate systems only made things worse: leadership lost visibility and the ability to manage everything from one place and one source of data.

To make matters worse, new expectations kept appearing. The tool was expected to solve more problems and meet more needs. The original goals were no longer relevant, and no one was keeping the project on course.

The Mistakes They Didn’t See Coming

Six months in, the first version of the system was finally ready for testing. The audit team quickly noticed that some features weren’t working as expected. Reports were generating errors, and users complained that navigation was too complicated. Data from different departments had been split apart, and the system, which was supposed to give the company a unified GRC view in one place, had become yet another information silo.

Tomek tried to reassure everyone: “That’s normal—there’s always something to fix. It’s just the first version. Now users will test it, give us feedback, and we’ll make improvements…”

The IT team at AutoMech Systems had entered a stage that providers of ready-made systems had resolved years earlier. Reliable reporting, user experience tailored to actual needs—at AutoMech, everything had to be built and tested from scratch. And that took time and resources.

One of the strengths of ready-made tools is that they’re tested continuously, not by one company and its team, but by hundreds or even thousands of users across organizations. System errors are discovered faster. Suggestions for improving processes, features, and the interface are made more often. As a result, each new client receives a product that’s far more refined than what the first user ever saw. The built-in processes have already been shaped and validated across industries, company sizes, and regulatory environments.

The following months were spent fixing issues, but instead of shrinking, the list of bugs kept growing. The small team, still busy with daily operations, had little time to develop the system further. Most of their effort went into patching basic functionality. Every solved problem led to new questions. And every answer brought new challenges.

The Security Surprise

Another blow to the project came in the form of an information security audit report, which landed on the desks of AutoMech Systems’ leadership. Cybersecurity specialists had identified serious vulnerabilities in the system. Naturally, the company had to pay an external firm to conduct the audit.

“There’s no data encryption. The system doesn’t protect against unauthorised access. What if someone steals sensitive information?” one auditor asked. The system failed to meet ISO standards and other requirements typically expected, or strongly recommended, by industry bodies and regulators.

Mature GRC solutions, like AdaptiveGRC, have already been thoroughly vetted by leading banks and pharmaceutical companies—organizations subject to some of the strictest oversight and regulations. AutoMech Systems’ solution still had to go through that level of testing, and unfortunately, it didn’t pass.

The company now faced a difficult decision: either delay the rollout to invest in security improvements and another audit, or go live and accept the risk of a potential data breach. Both options came with added costs—and serious risks.

Can the System Keep Up?

A year after the project began, the GRC system was finally up and running, at least partially. Eventually, someone had to go to the CEO, Marian, and deliver the uncomfortable truth: the project’s costs had already exceeded the initial budget several times over, as well as the earlier quotes from ready-made solution providers. And that wasn’t the end of it. The system still needed ongoing maintenance and development, especially in response to regulatory changes.

Does AutoMech Systems have the resources to maintain and develop this system in the years ahead?

Building the system was one thing. Sustaining it over time was a completely different challenge. The AutoMech solution required continuous effort, and no one could say for sure whether the company would still be able to invest in it a few years down the line. In contrast, ready-made platforms like AdaptiveGRC offer regular updates and development aligned with new regulations by default.

Now, the risk was clear: the system might stop evolving altogether, leaving the company stuck with an outdated, unsupported tool.

When “Cheaper” Ends Up Costing More

One of the key arguments for building a custom GRC system at AutoMech Systems was cost savings. But after two years, the expenses were significantly higher than expected. How did that happen?

• The complexity of the system had been underestimated. Implementing unfamiliar standards and best practices, along with digitizing internal processes, led to multiple redesigns, each adding significant extra costs.
• IT specialist salaries had risen, and retaining internal experts turned out to be more expensive than purchasing a ready-made solution.
• Server needs, infrastructure, and system maintenance consumed more resources than initially planned.
• Every new feature required additional funding.
• All of this created a growing amount of technical debt.

At AutoMech Systems, costs spiralled out of control. If the company had chosen AdaptiveGRC, it could have forecast total expenditures years in advance.

Two years in, the total cost of ownership (TCO)—including not just development but also infrastructure, security, updates, and staffing—had exceeded the cost of a ready-made solution. What was supposed to be the cheaper option had become a financial burden that kept getting heavier.

Why System Growth Became a Problem

Originally, the system was only meant to support audit functions. But it quickly became clear that the company also needed a risk management module. The problem? Adding a new feature required yet another major investment—more specialists, more analysis, more testing.

At AutoMech Systems, every change meant months of work and unexpected costs. With a ready-made solution like AdaptiveGRC, the company could have simply added an existing module to the system.

In the end, expanding the system turned out to be far more expensive, labour-intensive, and complex than anyone had anticipated.

It Was Supposed to Be Fast…

In theory, building a custom system was supposed to take six months. In reality, two years later, the tailor-made solution at AutoMech Systems still lacked full functionality.

Had the company chosen AdaptiveGRC, the system could have been fully implemented in about two months, with the first modules up and running within a few weeks.

The company lost valuable time, and the system still didn’t meet all the requirements it was meant to fulfill.

The Lesson Behind the AutoMech Systems Story

The decision to build a custom GRC system seemed like a rational one. It promised greater control, lower costs, and a better fit for the company’s unique needs. But reality quickly tested those assumptions.

As the project unfolded, it became clear that:

• Without a clear development strategy, the system drifted in different directions, and the needs of various departments were inconsistent.
• The IT team was forced to solve problems that providers of ready-made solutions had already tackled—and resolved—years ago.
• Major security gaps led to additional audits and investments, significantly delaying implementation.
• Maintaining and evolving the system became a separate challenge. No one could say whether the company would still have the resources to support it in a few years.
• Costs spiralled out of control. In the end, building a custom solution ended up being more expensive than implementing AdaptiveGRC would have been.
• The system lacked flexibility—every new feature required more funding, more specialists, and long implementation timelines.
• Implementation took far longer than expected. While a ready-made solution could have been up and running in weeks, their custom system was still under development years later.

Ultimately, AutoMech Systems’ leadership faced a difficult decision:

• Keep investing in their own system and accept even more costs and uncertainty,
• Or switch to a ready-made solution that could have been deployed faster and more affordably two years earlier?

It’s a question many companies face. In theory, building a custom system sounds like a smart move. But in reality, it often leads to high risk, unexpected expenses, and long delays. AdaptiveGRC helps avoid those pitfalls, offering predictability, security, and proven performance.

So the real question is: should you learn from your own mistakes or from the mistakes others have already made and overcome?

AdaptiveGRC: Built to Grow With Your Organization

Creating your own solution can seem like a smart decision—technology feels accessible, and the process appears manageable. But when it comes to systems like GRC, building the software is only about 20% of the challenge.

The real value lies in knowledge—the combined experience of dozens, even hundreds, of organizations that have faced similar issues. AdaptiveGRC offers not only fast deployment of a ready-made solution, but also a foundation built on years of know-how gathered across industries, company sizes, and regulatory environments. It’s the result of ongoing development shaped in partnership with GRC practitioners who share their daily needs, feedback, and ideas for improvement.

Our tool isn’t just a collection of prebuilt features. It’s a platform designed for full customisation and expansion, both on the process and the technology side. Unlike many enterprise-class systems that offer a quick start but limit flexibility, AdaptiveGRC gives users the freedom to fully reflect their organisation’s specifics, develop new features, integrate with their existing toolsets, and expand into new areas as they grow.

That’s why AdaptiveGRC isn’t just chosen as a launch solution—it’s built to evolve with the organisation over many years. And that combination of readiness and flexibility is what defines its true value.

Ready? Absolutely.
Rigid and limiting? Not even close.