Every organisation starts its GRC journey in Excel.
It’s cheap, flexible, familiar ; and surprisingly effective.
But there comes a moment when spreadsheets stop helping and start creating risk themselves.
The trick is knowing exactly where that moment is.
Most companies adopt a GRC platform for the wrong reasons:
because auditors complained, because a vendor pushed hard, or because someone said “Excel isn’t professional.”
Here’s the truth from the field:
Excel is perfectly fine ; until your GRC programme becomes too complex, too collaborative, or too regulated for a spreadsheet to survive.
Spreadsheets break quietly.
GRC platforms fail loudly.
The smart move is to switch at the right time, not prematurely and not too late.
Let’s break it down.
1. Excel Is Enough When You’re Small, Simple, and Early
Excel shines when:
-
your environment is small
-
your processes are manageable
-
your risks are limited
-
your controls fit on one page
-
you don’t have regulatory pressure
-
you need speed, not sophistication
Excel is great when your GRC programme is young.
It forces clarity.
It forces ownership.
It forces simplicity.
If your entire GRC programme fits in one dashboard and a few tabs, Excel is not a weakness ; it’s an advantage.
2. Excel Breaks the Moment You Need Real Governance
Excel becomes a liability when:
-
too many people need to collaborate
-
controls multiply
-
evidence storage becomes messy
-
decisions require approval workflows
-
you need traceability
-
you start versioning files (e.g., Security_Roadmap_v12_FINAL_FINAL.xlsx)
When Excel becomes a source of risk, not a tool to manage risk, the transition has already begun.
3. Use Excel for Risk Management… Until Risk Maturity Demands More
Excel is excellent for:
-
simple risk registers
-
early scoring
-
basic updates
-
low-change environments
But risk management evolves.
Sooner or later you need:
-
real-time updates
-
cross-team inputs
-
automated scoring
-
evidence linking
-
dashboards
-
trend analysis
-
audit trails
-
integrated reporting
If you can’t see horizontal impacts, Excel is already too small.
4. Control Management Outgrows Spreadsheets Faster Than Anything Else
This is the first domain where Excel truly collapses.
Controls need:
-
owners
-
deadlines
-
proof
-
frequency
-
automated reminders
-
consistent storage
-
RACI
-
version control
In Excel, all of this becomes manual work ; and manual work always creates blind spots.
One missed control = one major audit finding.
All because Excel has no memory.
5. Incident Management Should Never Live in Excel
This is one of the top mistakes in early-stage GRC.
Incidents tracked in spreadsheets disappear instantly:
no timestamps, no audit trail, no severity workflow, no escalation logic.
Incidents require:
-
immediate visibility
-
investigation traceability
-
task delegation
-
status tracking
-
linking to risks and controls
Incidents deserve better than cell editing.
6. Vendor & Third-Party Management Cannot Scale in Excel
Excel is perfect for listing vendors.
And can be terrible for managing their risks.
Why Excel fails here:
-
no automated assessments
-
no workflow
-
no reminders
-
no escalation
-
no integration with procurement
-
no linked evidence
-
no continuous monitoring
At some points, vendor risk needs automation ; or it becomes a hidden risk.
7. You Need a GRC Platform When Decisions Depend on Data You Don’t Trust
This is the real tipping point.
If leadership asks:
“Is this accurate?”
“Is this up to date?”
“Who updated this?”
“Where does this number come from?”
…your Excel programme is already dead.
A GRC platform is not about technology.
It’s about trust in your governance system.
Examples of checkpoints that trigger the need to switch:
-
“We don’t know which controls were tested this quarter.”
-
“We can’t show the auditor version history.”
-
“We don’t know if this risk was manually updated or not.”
If you can’t prove it, you don’t have governance.
That’s the line where platforms win.
8. Regulation Changes Everything
ISO 27001? You can survive in Excel if you’re disciplined.
SOC 2? Excel works early but becomes painful fast.
NIS2? Same as ISO 27001
DORA? No chance ; the framework is too interconnected.
GDPR? Possible.
Regulation accelerates complexity.
And complexity kills spreadsheets.
9. The Real Indicator: Human Pain → Not Technical Limits
Excel doesn’t fail because it can’t store data.
Excel fails because humans can’t maintain it.
Here are the human signs you need a GRC platform:
-
people are afraid to touch the files
-
meetings are spent reconciling versions
-
nobody knows where evidence lives
-
you rely on one “Excel hero”
-
audits take too long
-
reporting requires manual hours
-
updates get forgotten
10. How to Make the Transition at the Right Time
The worst reason to buy a GRC platform is FOMO.
The best reason is necessity.
Switch when:
-
you can’t maintain accuracy
-
you can’t prove evidence
-
you can’t manage workflows
-
audits become painful
-
updates become inconsistent
-
you need reporting reliability
-
risk grows faster than governance
Start with a tool that fits your size.
Not the “big player,” but the tool that matches your maturity.
Platforms don’t fix governance.
They support governance ; when governance already exists.
Final Thought
Excel is not the enemy.
It’s a perfectly valid GRC tool ; until your programme grows beyond human capacity.
The organisations that succeed are not the ones who rush into platforms, nor the ones who cling to spreadsheets out of habit.
They are the ones who know when speed matters more than structure ; and when structure becomes non-negotiable.
Excel is enough… until the day it isn’t.
Recognising that moment is one of the most mature GRC decisions you can make.
If you want to know exactly when your organisation should move from spreadsheets to a structured GRC platform ; and how to do it without wasting money ; that’s exactly what we teach in the Cyber Academy Lead Implementer Programs.
Join the next session to make your governance simple, scalable, and future-proof.
