
Director, Compliance Automation
“Design an environment where passing audits is simply a side effect of doing things right.”
Traditional GRC relies on spreadsheets, manual evidence collection, and periodic audits that provide a point-in-time view of compliance.
Compliance automation replaces this with policy-as-code, continuous control monitoring, and integration with cloud and CI/CD pipelines so controls are validated in real time and evidence is collected automatically.
This shifts compliance from a reactive reporting exercise to a continuous, engineering-driven function that improves accuracy, reduces manual overhead, and ensures constant audit readiness.
Many organizations treat each framework as a separate initiative, duplicating controls, evidence collection, and testing instead of recognizing that most frameworks share common control objectives.
Managing multiple frameworks can be challenging, but you can overcome this by engineering a unified control architecture where a single control can satisfy multiple regulatory requirements simultaneously.
When controls are designed and mapped appropriately, compliance becomes scalable, more efficient, and easier to sustain as regulatory demands evolve.
Preparation begins with implementing continuous control monitoring so evidence is collected and validated as part of daily operations.
I design structured control ownership, automated evidence collection, and centralized repositories so documentation is always current and audit-ready. This turns audits into confirmation of an already well-governed environment.
AI governance matters because most organizations already use AI indirectly through cloud platforms, SaaS tools, and embedded vendor features, which introduce risks related to data exposure, model integrity, and regulatory accountability.
Without governance, companies lack visibility and control over how sensitive data is processed, how automated decisions are made, and whether those processes align with security and compliance requirements.
Establishing AI governance ensures organizations can safely adopt AI capabilities that meaningfully benefit their business.
Organizations focused on passing audits produce evidence to satisfy control requirements at a specific point in time. Truly secure organizations ensure those controls operate effectively and consistently in practice.
Security is defined by continuous enforcement, visibility, and rapid response to change, not just documented policies and periodic validation. The distinction lies in operationalizing controls as part of daily engineering and governance processes so compliance becomes a natural outcome of a genuinely secure environment.
The data tells a story that contradicts conventional wisdom about cybersecurity threats.
Verizon’s 2025 DBIR reveals surprising patterns:
Whatâs really happening: Attackers are exploiting edge devices, chaining vulnerabilities, and using stolen credentials at unprecedented scale. The human element still drives roughly 60% of breaches through credential theft, password reuse, and misconfigurations.
What CISOs must do: Rebalance security roadmaps to address dual-front resilienceâstrengthening help desk defenses, accelerating patch cadence, and implementing zero-day monitoring alongside traditional awareness training.
2024 marked a decisive pivot in how attackers compromise organizations and the old playbook won’t cut it.
Key findings from FBI IC3, Verizon DBIR, and Mandiant M-Trends:
The trust exploitation trifecta:
What matters now: Supply chain compromises like Snowflake and MOVEit proved that vendor credential abuse creates enterprise-wide disasters. Organizations must align identity, vulnerability, and fraud strategies while treating resilience as a leadership challengeânot just a technical problem.
Your CISO isnât padding the budgetâtheyâre trying to keep you from becoming the next headline.
Why SIEM and SOAR matter to your business:
Without modern detection capabilities, organizations donât discover breaches until operations go dark or their data appears for sale. Attackers typically dwell in systems for 11 days before detection, and without SIEM/SOAR, that extends to weeks or months.
The real cost comparison:
Upfront investment: Licensing, staffing, training
vs.
Cost of doing nothing:
Weeks offline
Millions in losses
Brand reputation damage
Trust that’s nearly impossible to rebuild
What executives need to do now:
Bottom line: Firewalls wonât save you from compromised credentials or insider threats. SIEM and SOAR surface what traditional controls miss.
Your CISO is thinking “here we go again” when they hear about AI investments and they have good reasons.
Three critical security questions before you invest:
The reality check: Only 25% of companies see ROI from AI investments, often because they deploy without addressing data quality, volume, and relevance requirements.
Smart organizations assess whether their data infrastructure can support AI securely before procurementâensuring security leaders are involved early rather than after contracts are signed or data is exposed.
AI data poisoning is the emerging threat most organizations aren’t prepared for.
What it is: Adversaries intentionally introduce corrupt data into AI training or operational pipelines to manipulate model outputs and influence critical decisions in national defense, healthcare, and finance.
Essential defenses:
Proactive security measures:
Bottom line: Organizations must implement multi-layered defenses and real-time monitoring before AI systems impact critical operations.
The White House wants speed and innovationâbut security canât be an afterthought.
Three pillars with security implications:
What organizations must do: Navigate the tension between rapid deployment and robust security controls. Focus on real-world risks around data protection, privacy, and operational resilience rather than hypothetical threats.
Strategic opportunities:
Reality check: Companies in priority sectors may gain partnership opportunities while inviting heightened scrutiny. Security governance must support innovation rather than blocking progress.
State governments are racing to adopt AIâbut security challenges threaten to derail modernization efforts.
The opportunity:
The security reality:
State agencies face significant adoption barriers:
What organizations must provide: Help establish governance frameworks enabling secure innovation, implement anomaly detection for AI systems, address workforce readiness, and build capacity that survives administration transitionsâall while meeting heightened public expectations for digital-first services.
CMMC is no longer âcoming soonââitâs here, and prime contractors are already asking for proof.
What you need to know:
CMMC (Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification) is the DoDâs framework for enforcing cybersecurity across 220,000 defense supply chain entities. Final rule became effective December 2024, with Phase 1 beginning September 2025.
Three certification levels:
What prepared suppliers are doing RIGHT NOW:
Reality check: Prime contractors want SPRS scores, System Security Plans, and verifiable control documentation todayânot when the RFP arrives.
The âDepartment of Noâ isnât a personality problemâitâs a system problem you can fix.
Why CISOs default to ânoâ:
Many security leaders were trained for rigor over agility, coming from IT infrastructure or GRC backgrounds. They learned to prevent loss rather than enable innovation. Their cautious behavior is often reinforced by cultures that punish security incidents but rarely reward calculated risk-taking.
How each executive can unlock better partnerships:
The result: When executives lean in with these approaches, CISOs become strategic partners rather than gatekeepers blocking progress.
Attackers are using automation and AI to accelerate breaches and scale credential theft like never before.
The 2025 DBIR shows AIâs impact on attack evolution:
The modernization imperative: Organizations must counter AI-enhanced threats with stronger vulnerability intelligence, automated threat detection, and risk-tiered verification systems.
Bottom line: Technical controls must evolve at the same pace as attack automation. Security teams need to balance traditional human-focused defenses with advanced technical acceleration strategies.
Cloud and SaaS became critical blind spots in 2024, with attackers exploiting weak identity controls at scale.
The cloud vulnerability landscape:
What organizations must do immediately:
The convergence threat: AI-enhanced phishing combined with automated credential stuffing has created faster, more targeted attacks. Security programs must integrate human-centric and exploit-centric defenses, prioritize third-party risk visibility, and implement threat hunting mapped to MITRE ATT&CK.
You canât stop what you canât seeâand most organizations are flying blind.
The visibility gap: SIEM and SOAR platforms transform scattered technical noise (user logins, network behavior, system alerts) into real-time visibility across your digital ecosystem. This early warning system detects when threat actors are already inside your network, moving laterally, escalating privileges, or quietly exfiltrating data.
The speed imperative: Attackers move faster than legacy processes or overworked analysts can respond. SIEM surfaces meaningful threats quickly, while SOAR automates response playbooksâisolating affected systems, resetting credentials, and notifying responders.
Speed translates to business outcomes:
The 11-day problem: Once attackers breach systems, it typically takes 11 days before organizations realize theyâve been compromised. Without modern detection capabilities, those 11 days often become weeks or months of undetected access.
AI success starts with business fundamentals, not technology trends.
The smart approach:
Apply this filter:
The ROI leaders: Companies achieving $3.70 per dollar spent on AI do so by defining clear objectives, ensuring data readiness, starting with scalable use cases, and preparing for organizational change.
Bottom line: Strategic AI deployment supports people rather than replacing them, strengthening human connection while improving operational efficiency.
Most AI failures happen before the technology is even deployedâbecause the data foundation is broken.
The three data requirements for AI success:
1. Volume
Most AI models need substantial historical data to learn patterns. Organizations with only dozens of records or limited timeframes will struggle to achieve meaningful results.
2. Quality
Duplicates, inconsistent labeling, and manual entry errors create âgarbage in, garbage outâ scenarios where AI hallucinates patterns or produces unreliable outputs.
3. Relevance
Even clean data must be the right data for your use case. Wanting to personalize customer emails but only having transaction history wonât work.
The smart approach: Work backward from desired outcomes to identify necessary data sources rather than forcing AI onto existing datasets. Assess your data infrastructure before making technology investments.
Americaâs AI Action Plan reshapes the regulatory landscapeâwith major implications for compliance.
What changed:
The global compliance challenge:
U.S. deregulation clashes with stricter international governance:
What this means for business: Organizations operating globally must prepare for compliance friction. The Bipartisan House Task Force Report offers 66 findings and 89 recommendations guiding congressional action. Federal modernization around AI adoption, cross-agency data sharing, and digital-first services creates opportunities while introducing new expectations around transparency, accountability, and risk controls.
The policy window for AI acceleration is open NOWâbut strategic deployment requires more than speed.
Critical decisions business leaders face:
What separates winners from the rest:
Secure the foundation:
Build strategically:
Bottom line: Organizations that translate strategy into action while protecting mission-critical systems, design governance supporting innovation, and prepare teams for AI integration will achieve resilient and responsible deployment.
National AI initiatives are driving state modernizationâbut compliance complexity is exploding.
The compliance landscape:
Federal guidance is accelerating state AI adoption while creating new requirements:
State-level actions:
Persistent challenges:
Reality check: Organizations must navigate complex compliance while helping agencies meet evolving obligations across fragmented systems.
State government modernization creates massive opportunitiesâif you can address the unique operational challenges.
The scale of the challenge:
Where organizations can add value:
Define and execute:
Transform constraints into advantages: Address budget cycles misaligned with continuous tech evolution, competing agency priorities overriding enterprise objectives, change resistance from embedded processes, talent retention where public compensation canât compete with private offers, and complex vendor management.
Bottom line: Success requires accelerating AI adoption with governance frameworks enabling secure innovation while transforming resource constraints into strategic advantages.
Universities face a dual challenge: open access to enable research, learning, and knowledge-sharing and high-value data that attracts sophisticated attackers.
Recent attacks reveal the gap:
The stakes are higher than perceived: One breach exposes entire donor pipelines, alumni networks, and student financial data to identity theft and fraud. Education ranks among the most-targeted industries, yet most institutions lack corporate-grade security capacity.
What leadership must address: Build social-engineering awareness across all user groups, strengthen incident reporting workflows, implement role-based training for high-risk staff, and deploy technical controls like MFA and email filtering. The human element drives 60% of breaches.
1. This Is a Visibility Problem.
Rising memory costs quietly reduce security visibility before organizations realize theyâve accepted more risk. The real impact is what teams stop collecting, detecting, and proving.
2. Security Falls Behind AI by Default.
AI and data platforms are refreshed aggressively. Security infrastructure isnât. That misalignment creates blind spots where new, high-risk workloads run faster than the controls meant to protect them.
3. Cloud Offload Expands Risk Even When Nothing Changes.
Pushing logs to cloud providers to avoid hardware costs often expands third-party and compliance exposure without updating scope, contracts, or evidence expectations. Risk grows quietly while responsibility stays internal.
4. The Real Decision Is Economic.
Organizations will pay either by designing for constrained visibility or by discovering gaps during incidents, audits, or insurance disputes. Treating memory as a security design constraint preserves detection, response, and provability without waiting for budgets to catch up.
This Is a Time-Boxed Advantage
Your Existing Compliance Work Can Compound
Static Compliance Is Becoming a Liability
This Is an Economic Decision
The real question is whether delaying federal readiness by 18â24 months costs more than accelerating now. Think about deal pipelines, partner eligibility, and revenue timing.