The Concern
A privately held manufacturing group was preparing to raise capital so it could expand into new markets. Read More
What We Did
We started with leadership and department heads, mapping operations, critical assets, key suppliers and regulatory obligations. Read More
What We Found
Individually, most issues appeared minor. Together, they formed a meaningful pattern of risk Read More
The Outcome
It introduced a joint offboarding process covering both physical and system access for employees and contractors. Read More
The Concern
A privately held manufacturing group was preparing to raise capital so it could expand into new markets. It ran four production facilities across North and West India and had a growing vendor network.
Before investor discussions began, leadership wanted assurance that the organisation wasn’t carrying risks that could affect valuation, compliance or continuity.
Internal reviews had already taken place, but each covered only one area. Security, IT, procurement and compliance had assessed their own areas, and none reported significant concerns. Still, the board had no consolidated view of how these risks connected. Leadership wanted an independent, organisation-wide picture before external stakeholders started asking questions.
What We Did
- Understood the context. We started with leadership and department heads, mapping operations, critical assets, key suppliers and regulatory obligations. We agreed scope, priorities and confidentiality protocols before fieldwork began.
- Assessed four dimensions of risk:
- Physical: site security, access control and visitor management at all four facilities
- Digital: access rights, data handling practices and the security posture of key systems
- Operational: vendor dependencies, procurement controls and how concentrated critical knowledge was
- Regulatory: data protection, anti-bribery and statutory compliance obligations
- Connected the findings. We didn’t report each area in isolation. Instead, we examined how a weakness in one area increased exposure in others.
- Made it actionable. Leadership received a consolidated risk profile that ranked exposures by likelihood and impact, with a phased remediation roadmap.
What We Found
Individually, most issues appeared minor. Together, they formed a meaningful pattern of risk:
- Vendor access was poorly controlled. Several contractors still had physical site access and system credentials after their engagements had ended. No single team was responsible for revoking both.
- Procurement controls had a structural gap. Vendor onboarding relied on documents supplied by the vendors themselves. There was little independent verification of ownership, related parties or potential conflicts of interest.
- Sensitive data moved informally. Product designs and pricing information were routinely shared with suppliers through personal email and messaging apps, creating both data protection and confidentiality exposure.
- Critical knowledge sat with too few people. At two facilities, essential operational and security processes depended on individual employees, with no documented backup.
None of these issues had been flagged internally because each fell partly outside any one department’s remit.
The Outcome
Within the following months, the organisation:
- Closed the access gap: It introduced a joint offboarding process covering both physical and system access for employees and contractors.
- Strengthened vendor checks: New and high-value vendors now go through independent due diligence.
- Secured supplier data: Data sharing with suppliers moved to controlled, auditable channels.
- Reduced key-person dependency: Critical processes were documented, and backup responsibilities were assigned at key sites.
- Was ready for investors: When investor due diligence began, the company could show that it had identified its risks and was actively managing them.
Organisations rarely miss risk because individual teams are careless. They miss it because risks that cross departmental lines often have no clear owner. A unified assessment turns scattered observations into a clear picture that leadership can act on.