Minimum Viable Solution

It’s tempting to aim for the minimum viable solution—a framework just good enough to satisfy auditors. When looking at the kind of reporting I can create overlaying regulatory frameworks to our data we gather through our cloud providers and security systems, you feel like in the next level bakery filled with pie-charts. Stunning stuff at your fingertips, many pages you can dazzle boards and auditors with. On the one hand, simplicity saves time and money. Keeping controls lean means fewer resources wasted on unnecessary processes. It allows companies to focus on the core risks, avoiding a web of overcomplicated systems that can slow things down. But the minimum has its risks. Regulations are a moving target, especially in areas like cybersecurity. Meeting today’s standards might leave you exposed tomorrow. And let’s not forget the optics. When incidents happen, regulators and boards rarely care that you ticked all the boxes; they’ll wonder why you didn’t prepare better. So, is there a middle ground? Maybe it’s not about the “minimum viable” at all but finding a balance between efficiency and resilience. Enough controls to meet evolving threats without overengineering. Are we designing systems for the next audit or the next challenge?