Ideagen Risk Management vs. SAP Process Control

Pentana is great for monitoring PIs and risks. We find it less helpful for monitoring projects (with the Actions module); it isn't quite flexible enough for our needs, though the support team have been very helpful in adding custom fields for us.

In my opinion, SAP Process Control is well suited for bigger companies with an already mature Internal Control System as well as for bigger companies who want to completely new/redesign the internal control system. The size of the company, as well as the budget, is quite important when thinking about the implementation of SAP Process Control. A smaller company with e.g., 150 people should think more about implementing SAP FCM.

Incentivized

• Pentana is excellent for monitoring, recording and reporting on PIs. Very easy to use the PI module.
• Pentana is excellent for monitoring risks at various levels (service, strategic etc.). Risks are displayed very clearly in a tree structure and the module is relatively easy to use.

• Native connection to SAP applications
• Automated monitoring process of SAP applications
• Workflow capabilities for control testing

Incentivized

• Pentana could improve the free Documents module that comes with Pentana Risk. At the moment documents have to be linked to an action in order to display query results (such as how many documents are due for review) - this can be confusing for users who don't understand why there is an action linked. There is also no easy way for users to see the documents that are assigned to them.
• We would like to use the Actions module fully in order to monitor our corporate projects, but it a bit confusing for users and not very flexible when a project doesn't mirror Pentana's way of monitoring actions.

• Default delivery of controls could be done by SAP on some basic controls like client openings, password controls, etc
• The messaging or customization of messages in different workflows is limited, which could be introduced to enhance the product
• SAP Process control does not have the capability for cloud product monitoring which is required with more SAP cloud products available right now

Some modules are more user-friendly than others. It's sometimes not obvious where to click to update the fields (or even that field titles can be clicked on). We have written 'Howdys' to help users. There can also seem to be a lot of steps/clicks to updating risks and actions. The Reports module on Pentana classic is certainly not user-friendly, particularly the Report Layout and Charts modules - we were told these would be integrated into the web version but this hasn't happened yet.

The support team are excellent and always answer queries promptly. They are very helpful.

We selected Pentana because our neighbouring authorities are users and had spoken highly of the product and given us demonstrations; some of our staff were also familiar with Pentana when it was called Covalent. It seemed to be the best product on the market for monitoring risks, PIs and projects.

The connectivity with other SAP products out of the SAP GRC suite, like Access Control and so on, was key for the decision. Also we had an already mature SAP System landscape as well as having internal processes that were similar to the SAP Process Control standard processes helped us with the decision to implement SAP Process Control.

Incentivized

• Pentana Risk has allowed my team to focus on other areas of work whereas before we would be manually chasing for updates on PIs and risk. Pentana Risk does the chasing for us!
• We are able to produce reports for audit purposes very easily, rather than sending spreadsheets which is what we used to do.
• New managers can easily inherit risks, projects and PIs and see all of this on a custom portal, saving them time when they start.

• Automated alerts for controls issues
• Workflow capabilities; however, there's natively only 2 levels of review. More layers would be beneficial.

Incentivized