We tie risks to their owners and place a control, and the evidence for that control, against each risk. Policies run under version control, audit findings are tracked to a deadline, and a regulatory change lands with the right person. Work on personal data, occupational safety and the environment is read from a single dashboard under the same roof.
A business's compliance burden does not sit in one place. The personal data side is in one folder, occupational health and safety records in another file, environmental permits and waste declarations in a third, while the actions arising from customer audits usually pile up in an Excel file and a few email chains. As long as each is run separately, things work for a while. The trouble starts when an audit arrives: the same document is requested separately from several people, nobody can remember which action was closed, and what has been done about last year's commitment only becomes clear in the meeting. The same questions are asked again at every audit and the same documents are hunted down again each time. What is lost is not compliance itself; it is the trace of the effort spent on compliance.
On the risk side, most firms have little more than a meeting held once a year and the list that comes out of it. The list is prepared, filed, and rewritten the following year with almost the same headings. Yet managing a risk requires three things: it must have an owner, there must be a measure placed against it, and that measure must be tested at set intervals to confirm that it genuinely works. That measure is called a control. When no control is defined, a risk is only a worry; when a control is defined but never tested, it stays on paper. The most common finding in audits is generally exactly this: the procedure exists, but there is no evidence that it was applied. Collecting the evidence afterwards takes time and is usually left incomplete.
The governance, risk and compliance (GRC) approach brings these three areas under one roof. Governance sets out who decides what, which policy is in force and where authority begins and ends. Risk puts risks into a register, scores them on a common scale, ties them to an owner and places them on a review cycle. Compliance lists the obligations that bind you, that is the regulation, the standard, the customer requirement and the contract clause; it places a control, and the evidence for that control, against each one. In this way, separately run workstreams such as personal data, occupational safety, environment and supplier audit stay in their own fields but speak the same language of risk, control and action.
The honest side of this work has to be said at the outset: software does not deliver compliance. People deliver compliance; the system only makes the work done visible, trackable and provable. Risk scores are not objective measurements either, but agreed estimates; their value comes not from their precision but from everyone speaking through the same method. We do not give legal opinions; what we call regulatory change tracking is the notification of a change in the sources that bind you to the relevant owner and the request for its impact to be assessed, while the interpretation belongs to your legal adviser. And a warning about scope: in an organisation with low compliance maturity, opening the system across every area at once exhausts the team in the very first month. Starting with a single area is always healthier.
Firms producing for chain brands, large industrial buyers or export markets. In these businesses the audit calendar is not your decision; the buyer arrives, asks for documents and asks about the actions from the previous audit. Keeping findings together with the evidence of their closure makes the second audit easier from the start. Recollecting the same document at every audit is the most visible waste of time in these firms.
Businesses carrying more than one management system at the same time, such as ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO 45001. In these organisations the same control is evidenced separately for each standard and the effort is repeated. A shared control library is the most practical way to reduce that repetition.
Firms carrying personal data, occupational health and safety, environmental and foreign trade obligations together. Each area runs with its own specialist; what is missing is the ability for management to look at all of them from a single place. A common list of open actions and upcoming dates is the first concrete benefit here; a missed notification deadline often turns into the most expensive mistake.
Mid-sized businesses where quality, occupational safety and compliance responsibilities are combined in a single person. In this setup knowledge accumulates in the individual, and when that person goes on leave the process stops. The system's first contribution is that tracking moves out of personal memory into the organisation's records, so whoever stands in can carry on from the same list.
Risks are gathered into a single list; each risk has an owner, a category, likelihood and impact scores, its existing controls and a review cycle. The scoring scale is built to suit your structure and applied the same way across all units. Risks from different departments thus become comparable for the first time; the risk heat map is also produced from that shared scale.
The controls that reduce each risk are defined against it; who carries the control out, how often and how it is to be evidenced is written down. The test plan is tied to a calendar, lands with the person responsible, and its result is recorded together with the evidence file. Untested controls appear separately in the report, because what an audit really asks for is not the existence of the procedure but the evidence that it works. A control with no evidence is most often treated in an audit as if it did not exist at all.
Policies are kept under version control: who prepared it, who approved it, from what date it is in force and when the next review falls due. A published policy is assigned to the relevant employees and read receipts are recorded; for policies that require mandatory training, a link can be made to the training record. Old versions are not deleted but stay in the archive. That is exactly what is needed when a past-dated practice is queried.
The regulatory clauses, standard requirements, customer demands and contractual obligations that bind you are listed in a single register; each is tied to a person responsible and to a control. When a tracked source changes, a notification goes to the relevant owner and an impact assessment record is opened. The outcome of the assessment is tied either to an action or to a written, justified record that you are not affected.
The audit plan, the checklists and the audit records are kept in the system. The findings that emerge are classified by severity, tied to an owner and a deadline; the corrective action steps and the closure evidence are added to the same record. Overdue findings appear in the ageing report. Findings from customer and certification audits can be run through the same flow, so internal and external audit findings are tracked in a single list.
Control tests, training records, measurement reports, permits and minutes are stored under the relevant control. Before an audit, the requested scope is selected and the evidence pack is compiled in one go. The preparation days spent searching for documents are the real loss item in most organisations; once the record system settles, that time largely disappears. Which document was given to the auditor is also recorded.
Open risks, untested controls, overdue findings and upcoming review and renewal dates are gathered on a single dashboard. The periodic report that goes to management is produced from this data. The report is not formed by merging presentations prepared separately by each area but by reading from the same records, so the pre-meeting compilation work disappears. From every figure on the dashboard you can drill down to the underlying record list in one step.
We list together the regulations, standards, customer requirements and contractual obligations that actually bind you; which areas enter in the first stage is decided. In practice, starting with a single area, most often the most frequently audited one, makes adoption of the system markedly easier. The scoping decision is the most decisive step in this work.
The risk register is drawn up from existing risk lists, audit history and on-site interviews. A common scoring scale is agreed and every risk is tied to an owner. A risk without an owner is not managed; this step is a matter of management decision rather than of software, and for that reason it is run together with your team. Each risk's review cycle is also set here.
Controls are written against the risks; controls that satisfy more than one standard at the same time are merged into a single record. For each control, what the evidence will be and where it will come from is determined. A control whose evidence has not been defined comes back as a burden to be recreated on the day of the audit. As shared controls are merged, the effort of producing evidence falls noticeably.
In the chosen area the policy, audit, finding and action flows are opened; a real audit cycle is run through the system from start to finish. During this period, which usually takes 4-8 weeks, the forms, deadlines and notification frequency are simplified together with the people responsible for the area. Opening too many areas at once is the most common adoption problem.
The remaining compliance areas are connected to the same structure; the management dashboard and the periodic report go live. Who updates what and when, and how the review calendar works, are left in writing. We show how a new standard or customer requirement is added to the same structure. After go-live, support continues for changing regulation and new customer requirements.
No. Software does not deliver compliance; it makes visible whether the compliance work has been done. The system tells you which obligation sits with whom, which control was tested when and which finding is still open. Compliance cannot be managed without that information; but it does not follow automatically from it either. Actually applying the controls and closing the gaps is the organisation's job. We would suggest treating any proposal that says otherwise with caution.
It does not overlap; it stands above them. The systems described on those pages do the work of their own areas: the data inventory and privacy notices under KVKK (Turkish data protection law), occupational health and safety records and training, waste and emission declarations. GRC is the shared language of those areas; risk, control, evidence, finding and action are held in the same structure and reported to management from a single dashboard. In practice most organisations start with one area and build the roof afterwards. Both are possible; we discuss in discovery which one suits you.
They are not entirely objective, and claiming that they are would be misleading. Likelihood and impact values are estimates agreed by people who know the subject. Their value comes from two things: everyone using the same scale, and the reasoning behind the score being on record. Over time, as events that actually occur are entered into the system, the scores become comparable against historical data. Even so, a risk score is a prioritisation tool rather than a measurement; a setup in which it makes the decision would not be right.
No; legal tracking and interpretation are not our job and fall outside the scope of this page. What we build is a monitoring arrangement: the sources that bind you are defined, when a change comes a notification lands with the relevant owner, an impact assessment record is opened, and its outcome is tied either to an action or to a justified record. Which channel the sources are tracked through, and who carries out the assessment, remain with your legal, quality or occupational safety people.
It will be if you choose the scope wrongly. That is why we do not recommend opening every area at once. You start with a single area, a limited number of risks and controls that will genuinely be tested; the pilot period usually takes 4-8 weeks. The length of the forms and the frequency of notifications are simplified during that period. A field the team does not fill in is usually a problem of design rather than of the team; a small core that has settled is far more valuable than a broad but empty structure.
A risk register with clear owners and scores; a control library tied to the risks, with its test plan and evidence; versioned policies and read receipts; an obligation register with change notifications; the audit plan, finding and action tracking; an audit-ready evidence archive and a management dashboard. Usage notes explaining how the system is to be kept up to date are also left with the handover. The source code, the data and the documentation belong to you.
In a 30-minute discovery call we listen to what you need and tell you honestly whether custom development or an off-the-shelf product is the better answer.
We break projects down into a work breakdown structure, make resources and capacity visible, and put budget and actuals side by side. Milestones, risks and decisions sit in the same record; management reads the whole portfolio from a single dashboard and discusses which work comes first by looking at data.
Details →We design and build internal systems and subscription-based SaaS products that run in the browser, sit behind secure sign-in and show content according to role and permission. We shape them around how your business actually works, and we share the source code with you.
Details →We bring your field, sales and customer-facing work into a single app. We design iOS and Android applications around your needs, build them with offline mode and push notification infrastructure, and publish them on the App Store and Google Play.
Details →Desktop applications that keep going even when the internet drops, connect directly to barcodes and local hardware, and run fast on the shop floor and in the office. For Windows and macOS, with the source code yours.
Details →Web applications that are installable, work offline and meet the Core Web Vitals thresholds. Measured speed, a solid technical SEO foundation and an experience developed specifically for your brand.
Details →Custom API and integration development that gets your ERP, CRM, marketplace, e-invoice and production systems talking to each other, with a two-way, secure and traceable data flow.
Details →
