Every finding is translated into plain English that directors can review, challenge and evidence. If your role requires you to hold management to account for technology risk but you do not control the technology yourself, you are exactly who this is for.
You are accountable for governance, including operational resilience and data protection. You receive IT updates but have no independent means of verifying what is actually configured. Evidence where previously there was assumption.
Charity trustees carry personal liability for governance failures. Microsoft 365 is the operational backbone of most charities, yet trustee boards rarely have visibility of its configuration. Independent assurance that satisfies both the Charity Commission and your own duty of care.
Your role is to provide independent challenge to management assertions. When management says the systems are secure, this is the evidence to test that claim, framed in the plain English your committee already works in.
You own the operational risk register. Microsoft 365 configuration sits on it whether you know it or not. Configuration state translated into risk language you can act on, escalate or report to the board with confidence.
You are responsible for ensuring the board has adequate information to discharge its duties. Structured, independent reporting that gives the board visibility it currently lacks over one of the organisation's most critical platforms.
You oversee acquisitions and report to an investment committee. Your context is different enough to have its own page: how the investment engagement works.
Your regulator expects evidence of operational resilience, data protection controls and governance oversight. In the UK, that means FCA expectations around SYSC and operational resilience. In the EU, DORA explicitly requires ICT risk governance at board level and evidence of oversight over third-party technology providers, which is precisely what Microsoft 365 is. Across both jurisdictions, GDPR places accountability for data processing controls at board level. InquilionGRC provides the independent assurance that satisfies regulatory expectation without creating operational disruption.
The absence of a regulator does not mean the absence of accountability. Cyber insurers across the UK and EU are tightening policy wording around configuration governance. Acquirers are asking about it in due diligence. Clients in regulated industries are flowing governance expectations down to their suppliers. The market is regulating you even if the state is not.
You do not really understand IT and you trust your team.
You measure Microsoft 365 by uptime, like the old on-premise server model.
Configuration risk has never appeared on the board risk register.
Your board receives IT updates and takes them at face value.
Nobody independently verifies what is actually configured.
You inherited a Microsoft 365 environment through acquisition and have no governance visibility over it.
Your cyber insurance renewal was treated as an admin task.
The questionnaire was signed with no diligence beyond getting it renewed.
If it failed tomorrow, shareholders would ask what the board knew.
Today the honest answer is an IT update, taken on trust.
A single, independent assessment across sixteen governance domains. No disruption. No jargon. Evidence where previously there was assumption. If the question is budget, the ROI page is written to be forwarded to your finance director.
REQUEST INFO