Wherever you are in the platform evaluation process, narrowing your choices down and selecting a new solution is never easy. This guide helps balance out the pros and cons of what your needs really are as you evaluate your current system and prepare to make a final leap to a new GRC platform.
Much like fire and early man, the Excel-based RCM-to-Assurance Professional relationship has seemingly been in existence since the dawn of time (or at least the dawn of Excel). Thankfully there is a better way to manage this critical element of your assurance process. And you can do it without having to sacrifice what made the Excel-based approach so appealing in the first place—structured data, demonstration of key relationships, management of key attributes.
There are a lot of advantages to opening up your data—within reason. Team members who are both a key holder and a person trying to access sequestered data can find it to be a tricky proposition as to when to be an open model and when to remain closed.
Poor work results can almost always be avoided. If you’ve fallen into this trap before, not to worry. There is a way around the stressful feeling of not knowing what you’re doing, and a way to conquer poor time management, a bad habit that can take us down in a hurry.
A lot of fear comes from not being prepared, not having the correct support needed to fulfill and complete a job. The more it happens, the more FOMO creeps in and takes over, and that can become a truly destructive force in an office setting.
It’s funny how the mere mention of “contract review” causes tension in a room. In one corner, you have the people who are trying to execute a contract and get down to business. For them, the review and approval process can’t move swiftly enough. In the other corner, you have those who are responsible for going through contracts with a fine-toothed comb. They don’t want to be rushed in their work. It’s too important to get it right—and far too costly if things go wrong.
If your software provider is committed to keeping the product up to date and delivering new and valuable features, then your software implementation really should stand the test of time. But here’s the kicker: You have to take advantage of what’s available to you. Those new features from your vendor won’t do much good if you don’t incorporate them into your work. And when your team and processes evolve (as they always will), your software may need some fresh configuration to adapt to your changing needs.
As it turns out, doing things properly is almost always a good choice. Though reading instructions or planning ahead may slow you down in the beginning, you’re more likely to end up with a quality outcome. This is true when assembling furniture and when implementing new software—particularly if that software offers a great deal of flexibility. Taking a few days to plan your approach (rather than diving right in) can dramatically improve your chances of success.
We frequently meet with people who are ready to solve problems with new technology, but they’re struggling to assemble the right team to move the project forward. Building a solid project team can be tough, especially when multiple business functions are involved. However, I can’t overemphasize the importance of finding that “magic mix” of stakeholders. It can make all the difference between success and disappointment.
Gantt charts. You love them or you hate them. Or you love to hate them. Whatever your sentiment toward this mainstay of the project management world, there’s no denying that Gantt charts can be an incredibly useful tool for visualizing project resources and activities over time. That is…IF they are easy to create and modify and IF they are accurate. Otherwise, they’re not worth the paper (or screen space) they’re written on.