Replace GRC spreadsheets
A GRC migration starts with fields, responsibilities and data quality. This sequence moves from the existing workbook through a trial run to business acceptance.
A sound business case compares current operations with specific alternatives. It shows implementation effort, recurring cost and evidenced benefits over the same period.
Start with a concrete problem, such as inconsistent registers, slow report preparation or overdue actions. Identify the processes affected and the desired result. Compare controlled continuation, extending existing applications and purchasing a new solution. Use the same functional scope and period for all options. The calculation below is an original working model, not a supervisory prescription.
For representative cases, record annual volumes and processing time, including coordination, searching and rework. Separate recurring register maintenance from support for a particular audit. Record the measurement period, sample and uncertainties. Do not count staff time and an external invoice twice for the same service.
Licence cost is only part of the project. Keep internal implementation capacity visible even where it creates no additional cash outflow.
| Cost area | One-off or recurring | Evidence needed |
|---|---|---|
| Data cleansing and migration | One-off, potentially repeated runs | Volumes and work estimates |
| Configuration and interfaces | One-off plus future changes | Proposal with a defined scope |
| Licensing, hosting and service | Recurring | Contract proposal and pricing basis |
| Content ownership and administration | Recurring internal capacity | Roles and estimated hours |
| Training and transition | Initial and later onboarding | Participants and time |
| Exit and data handover | At contract end or provided for | Export, archiving and handover scope |
Net hours released = current process hours minus future process hours minus additional maintenance hours. An internal fully loaded hourly rate makes the capacity effect comparable. Cash benefits arise only when expenditure actually falls, for example external support or overtime. Using released time to improve controls creates a business benefit, not an automatic payroll reduction.
Illustrative arithmetic only, not customer results: a process currently requires 1,200 hours per year. Assume 700 hours of processing after implementation and 100 additional hours of maintenance and administration. This releases 400 hours. At an assumed internal rate of EUR 75, the capacity value is EUR 30,000. If no payments actually cease, the resulting cash-budget saving remains zero.
Calculate cautious, expected and favourable cases. Vary implementation time, adoption, remaining work and recurring costs. Annual net cash effect = expenditure actually removed minus additional recurring expenditure. Treat one-off cash costs separately. Payback is meaningful only if net cash benefit is positive; with changing annual values, use cumulative cash flows. Evaluate control quality and traceability using explicit outcome measures, without treating hypothetical fines as certain savings.
A percentage from another organisation cannot establish ROI for your bank. Use your own baseline data, proposals, remaining effort and actual adoption.
Yes. Report it as hours and capacity value. Separately demonstrate whether it reduces expenditure.
Yes. Meeting requirements and comparing economic alternatives are distinct questions. Show which suitable option meets the requirement at an acceptable cost.
A GRC migration starts with fields, responsibilities and data quality. This sequence moves from the existing workbook through a trial run to business acceptance.
T-NEX advises banks and insurers on software projects and GRC processes, with functional specifications, technical planning and an agreed implementation scope.
Explore serviceBring a concrete task. Together, we will define what the application needs to do.
Discuss your project