MetricStream Platform vs. SAI360

MetricStream is well suited for when you need to pull a report into Excel for further analysis. It is not good for when information needs to be entered as this is all done manually by analysts and managers. If we can implement a way to take parts of uploaded documents and have the system automatically enter the information in the designated fields in MetricStream, it would cut out lots of manual work for our department.

Incentivized

The usage of ROAM, as well as the integration of external programmes through API and import functions, has almost reduced duplication of work. One thing to keep in mind is that your use cases must be very clear. There are a lot of SAI solutions, and their titles don't always correspond to what they actually perform.

Incentivized

• Easy to navigate.

Incentivized

• Customized unified design platform
• Modules that fit your organization
• Low technology involvement with information department.
• Built on foundational platforms some bidirectional in the ERM framework with TPRM contracts
• Single sign-on web-based applications

Incentivized

• Speed/efficiency.
• Missing functionality: Uploading documents (Excel sheets) into MetricStream and being able to pull information from that form into the program.
• Improve number of outages and time that it is out for.

Incentivized

• Internal Quality Check. I think this is the most prominent area BWise should improve on. Currently they lack internal Quality Check/Review.
• Internal dialogue among employees. When various consultants are involved in the same project, their communication and updating each-other could be a bit stronger.
• Inclusion of content. The application could benefit considerably from including some out-of-the-box content (e.g. COSO principles, Risk catalogs, etc.).
• Risk Workshop functionality. This is one of the main functionalities that allows integration among different areas of an organization. However, it comes pretty much "take it or leave it"; it's almost not customizable.
• Consultants' transparency. When an organization requests a particular design of the application or solicits changes to such design, it would be great if BWise consultants could always and more thoroughly advise on the implications of these changes, design to the organization's strategic objectives and ultimate target.
• Product features. Application has room for improving its programming, e.g. providing internal checks when creating/answering an issue/finding (for instance, remedy implementation date cannot be before the recommendation response date or the recommendation creation date). Another example would be the possibility of automatic periodic followup (e.g. every 1 month until completion).

Incentivized

BWIse is very flexible, and an affordable GRC tool.

Incentivized

Overall it is a very versatile system that does help to keep our processes automated and secure. We are able to streamline our day to day activities.

Incentivized

BWise support is knowledgeable and responsive. Bug fixes and development are also timely and ongoing.

Incentivized

The main issues were managing the internal conflicts and competing objectives, rather than the capability and implementation of BWise itself.

Incentivized

Archer is more risk-management-friendly in that it has a better interface and more room to conduct risk-related tasks and pull reports.

Incentivized

Wasn't personally involved in the vendor selection process. I am aware that one of the main drivers for selecting BWise was cost (I believe BWise total project cost was several times lower than MetricStream's).

Incentivized

• It keeps records of all of our vendors and the corresponding documents.
• Other departments can access information on vendors.

Incentivized

• The system is costly for the initial setup
• Does help to mitigate risk and keep the vendors and internal departments from becoming non-compliant.
• One license for all users
• Easy to manage employee's security access

Incentivized