Cyber, Physical Security, and Operations Belong in GRC Framework Conversations

In many organizations, cybersecurity, physical security, and operational risk management are handled as separate disciplines. Each has its own policies, teams, and reporting structures.  From an operational standpoint, that separation feels manageable, until it isn’t.

Most incidents don’t respect organizational boundaries. They move across people, processes, and systems. When security efforts are siloed, governance gaps form, and they translate directly into operational risk.

Here’s a common scenario. Let’s say that an organization has a defined cybersecurity program, i.e., policies exist, controls are implemented, and regular assessments are conducted. But at the same time, physical access reviews are handled separately, operational processes evolve faster than security oversight, and vendor access is reviewed inconsistently across departments.

Typically, no single failure causes an incident. Instead, it’s the lack of coordination across governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) that creates exposure.

Think holistically

Cybersecurity and physical security are often discussed as technical or tactical problems. For operations leadership, they are fundamentally governance issues.

What does a mature, integrated GRC framework look like?

A mature GRC program:

• Establishes ownership and accountability
• Connects risk decisions to operational priorities
• Ensures that policies reflect how work gets done
• Aligns compliance activities with real-world risk

When cybersecurity and security are treated separately from operations, GRC becomes reactive rather than enabling. In contrast, an effective information security program is holistic and thus integrates the following:

• Cybersecurity controls
• Physical and environmental safeguards
• Operational processes and workflows
• GRC oversight

This approach ensures that security requirements are not imposed on operations; rather, they are designed with operations in mind.

Five steps to integrating cyber and physical security into GRC without disrupting operations

Bring cyber and physical security into the GRC framework without disrupting operations:

• • Align cyber and physical access reviews under a single governance process
  • Map critical operational processes to supporting systems and data
  • Ensure onboarding and offboarding are governed consistently across departments
  • Review third-party access through both operational and security lenses
  • Use risk discussions to drive decisions, not just to satisfy compliance

How does MCP help organizations take this integrated approach?

Organizations often benefit from a neutral, outside perspective when evaluating how well security and operations align within a GRC framework. MCP works with leadership teams to:

• Evaluate how cybersecurity, security, and operations intersect
• Identify governance gaps that increase operational risk
• Align policies and controls with how the organization operates
• Support the development of practical, integrated GRC programs

Strong security outcomes are rarely the result of isolated controls. They come from governance structures that recognize security as an operational responsibility and manage it accordingly.

Jason Franks is an MCP cybersecurity analyst. Email him at JasonFranks@MissionCriticalPartners.com.

Related Posts

Whitepaper: Building Resilience Through Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC)

Whitepaper: From Concept to Reality: Best Practices for Implementing the GRC Framework)