GRC Engineering: The Need for Practice Standards

When it comes to GRC systems, there can be a significant gap between what gets implemented and what's actually needed to achieve the performance and outcomes we're after.

GRC system failures can be attributed to (among other things) practitioners lacking the fundamentals: understanding regulatory requirements, control theory, and how to translate compliance obligations into effective socio-technical solutions.

At its core, this is requirements engineering and system design work.

Yet how many self-proclaimed "GRC engineers" can actually design systems and processes that deliver meaningful data privacy, security, and compliance outcomes? Simply calling yourself an engineer doesn't make you one.

This isn't just about credentials—it's about competence and trust. Organizations and the public deserve systems built by people who truly understand their craft. We demand reliability and integrity from our systems; shouldn't we expect the same from the people who build them?

Other engineering disciplines have practice standards and licensing for good reason. As GRC automation becomes increasingly critical to organizational governance and public safety, we need similar standards to ensure practitioners are actually qualified for the work they claim to do.

It's time to establish formal practice standards for GRC engineering—education requirements, competency assessments, and right-to-practice protections that ensure only qualified professionals design and implement the systems protecting our organizations and communities.

What's your take on this? I'd love to hear your thoughts.