
While striving for total compliance is a noble goal, it's important to recognise that it can be a fallacy for several reasons:
Regulations often require interpretation. Different organisations may interpret the same regulation in varying ways based on their specific contexts, risk profiles, and business models.
Compliance is contextual, requirements can differ based on industry, geography, application and organisational structure.
100% compliance often requires resources that may not yield proportional benefits. Organisations must balance resource allocation between compliance and strategic initiatives aimed at value creation.
Organisations must accept that risk is inherent in any business operation. Striving for absolute compliance can lead to a risk-averse culture that stifles innovation and value generation.
Compliance is not standard. What one organisation views as compliant, another might not. Importantly, standard compliance platforms often don’t take into account your risk profile or legal position.
So, what does this mean for compliance and governance teams?
Well, the goal should never be full compliance - it should be finding the apex between data protections and data value.
Of course you need to know the law, the guidelines and enforcement risk - but that’s a given. It’s how you strategically apply that to your business that matters! Meaning it’s a mistake to rely on standard controls and frameworks or the law itself as a metric for compliance and governance success.
You need your own framework. One that takes into account your data rights, risk profile, legal position, priorities, resources, business objectives and data value when determining your data controls.
At Friday Initiatives, this is exactly what we do - then we work with your teams to automate it!
コメント