The tool maturity paradox 

For more than two decades, IT and cybersecurity leaders have relied on a simple mantra: people, process, and technology. Like a sturdy three-legged stool, these pillars keep security balanced and strong. But what happens when technology advances faster than an organization’s ability to use it effectively? Or when sophisticated platforms are introduced faster than teams and workflows can adapt? The balance shifts. 

Organizations lean heavily on the technology leg, leaving people and processes behind. This imbalance is what we call the Tool Maturity Paradox, a state where advanced tools outpace the maturity of the humans and processes meant to support them. The result? A stool that’s no longer stable, and two legs struggling to keep up. 

How we got here 

So, how do organizations tip the stool? Three big trends: 

• Procurement-led security – Boards love buying tools. Budgets favor visible action. A statement like “We deployed XYZ” sounds like progress, while “We restructured governance” rarely does. 

• Vendor promise inflation – Terms like “AI-enhanced” and “turnkey” create the perception that maturity can be purchased and immediately activated, but it takes time and training.  

• Underinvestment in people and process – Training and governance aren’t glamorous. That’s why they’re often the first to be cut and deprioritized when they are the most needed.  

People: the underdeveloped leg 

Organizations assume employees can master new technologies as fast as they are deployed. But people’s maturity rarely keeps pace. 

Common challenges: 

• Analysts trained on only a fraction of tool capabilities  

• Critical configurations known by just one or two engineers  

• Cloud teams unclear on identity and privilege flows  

• Incident response never tested with live tools  

• Documentation stuck in tribal knowledge instead of shared repositories  

• Control operators excluded from design decisions 

This results in unrealistic expectations. Teams are asked to deliver high performance without proper training, clarity, or time. Even capable people can’t succeed in tool adoption with a weak process. 

Process: the missing leg and role of GRC 

Process is often the leg that barely exists, and this is where GRC becomes critical. Too many organizations see GRC as a compliance checkbox rather than the structural backbone that keeps operations consistent and effective. In reality, the process is governance, risk alignment, control definition, measurement, accountability, and lifecycle management. These elements form the foundation that GRC provides, ensuring security isn’t just reactive but disciplined and sustainable. 

How GRC strengthens process maturity: 

• Governance | Who decides – Every failure traces back to unclear decision paths. GRC defines who approves exceptions, owns identities, signs off on risk, and validates changes.  

• Risk | What matters most – Not all alerts are equal. GRC aligns priorities with business impact, risk appetite, and regulatory exposure, turning noise into value. 

• Controls | How consistency happens – A control isn’t a document; it’s an owned, measurable capability with verification and a lifecycle. Tools execute controls; GRC defines them. 

• Compliance | How we prove it – Maturity requires evidence: reviews, certifications, and audit trails. Tools collect data; GRC enforces cadence and structure. 

• Lifecycle | How controls stay relevant – Controls must evolve with the environment. GRC enforces review cycles, verification of responsibilities, exception handling, and change approval. 

Why technology fails without people and process 

Tools are only as effective as the people who use them and the processes that guide them. Without those foundations, even the most advanced platforms underdeliver. Here’s why: 

• Tools assume discipline that doesn’t exist 
  Advanced platforms expect mature workflows like onboarding, identity lifecycles, change management, and control reviews. When these don’t exist, value evaporates. 

• Tools show risk; people decide what matters 
  A tool can’t judge what’s acceptable or urgent. Prioritization requires human judgment and governance. 

• Automation needs guardrails 
  Organizations avoid automation when workflows aren’t mature enough for safe execution. GRC provides the structure that makes automation reliable, not risky. 

• Integration depends on ownership 
  Technology is the last link in a chain of accountability and clear workflows. Without them, even the best tools fail to integrate. 

If you’re facing this paradox, remember this… 

Cybersecurity maturity isn’t something you can buy; it’s something you build. When organizations invest intentionally in people, processes, and the GRC structures that support both, they unlock the full potential of the tools they already own. That’s when technology stops outpacing the organization and starts delivering real value. 

Start the year fresh by evaluating your GRC structures and mapping frameworks to a common set of controls. Learn more here.