CUSTOMER PORTAL
Third-party risk management is being asked to keep pace with a business environment that changes quickly. Organizations depend on suppliers for technology, data, operations, and services, and those suppliers increasingly use artificial intelligence. AI speeds up change across the ecosystem while creating its own third-party risk domain.
Emerging risks can evolve in days, while traditional TPRM programs may take months to operationalize a response.
Three shifts help explain the pressure: risk is broader, more interconnected, and more dynamic. Each makes it harder to know what to assess, how exposures affect each other, and whether an assessment still reflects today’s relationship.
Third-party risk programs have traditionally focused on familiar areas such as financial health, information security, privacy, and compliance. Those remain essential, but organizations now face a wider set of concerns across responsible AI, geopolitical exposure, human rights, digital resilience, modern slavery, and climate risk, among others.
AI illustrates how quickly the perimeter can expand. A supplier may embed AI in a product or service even when AI is not the company’s primary business. That use can raise questions about how the supplier governs data, tests for bias, explains model outputs, provides human oversight, monitors performance, and protects systems from misuse. These issues can matter to the customer even when the customer doesn’t build or operate the model itself.
As new technologies and business practices spread through third parties, organizations face more risk domains to recognize and assess. The longer list also forces teams to determine which risks apply to which relationships, often with limited visibility into how a vendor’s services work behind the scenes.
Risk categories can help teams organize work, but real events rarely stay inside one category. A cyber incident at a critical supplier can interrupt operations, affect data privacy, and create financial and reputational consequences. A disruption linked to climate or geopolitical conditions can expose weaknesses in business continuity, supply chain resilience, and concentration management.
AI risk has similar connections. AI systems depend on data, infrastructure, and people. Weak data governance may raise privacy concerns. Limited explainability can complicate oversight and compliance. Inadequate security can expose models or the information they process. An AI-related issue at a vendor may therefore affect several parts of the customer’s risk profile at once.
When teams assess each domain in isolation, they can miss the relationships among exposures. Information may sit with different functions, follow different review cycles, or use different criteria. That makes it harder to see how risks combine, which third-party relationships deserve closer attention, and where a change in one area should prompt a wider review.
The conditions around third parties keep moving. Regulations evolve across jurisdictions, including rules that address AI. Geopolitical tensions can alter where suppliers operate, how services are delivered, and which dependencies matter. Cyber threats shift, and natural disasters can disrupt facilities, infrastructure, or transportation routes with little warning.
The suppliers themselves change too. A vendor may update a model, introduce a new AI use case, change its data sources, rely on a new subcontractor, or move a service to a different location. Those changes can affect the organization’s exposure even if the original onboarding review was thorough.
This creates a timing problem for TPRM. A point-in-time assessment captures information at a particular moment, while the relationship continues to evolve. If the underlying conditions change, an earlier answer may no longer describe the supplier’s current practices or the organization’s current exposure. Teams need to account for both what they know about a third party and how quickly that knowledge can become outdated.
These shifts expose another challenge: many TPRM operating models weren’t designed to adapt at the speed AI changes. A response may move through several steps: recognize the risk, define business needs, design a process, configure or build the program, then deploy changes and train users. Each handoff takes time, and the path can stretch from days into weeks or months.
When AI capabilities, use cases, or rules shift faster than that process, teams may be addressing yesterday’s exposure by the time a response reaches day-to-day operations. The result is a widening gap between how quickly risk changes and how quickly TPRM can operationalize a response.
Taken together, these shifts challenge the assumptions behind traditional TPRM. Organizations must track more types of risk, understand the ties among them, and recognize that assessments can age as vendors and conditions change. The time it takes to operationalize a response adds pressure on teams as the landscape keeps moving.
To keep pace, TPRM teams will need to use AI to accelerate how their programs adapt. As new risk areas emerge, AI can help teams translate them into assessment criteria, controls, workflows, and training—and speed up the work of configuring and deploying those changes. This can shorten the time between recognizing a new risk and having a process to address it, helping TPRM evolve at the pace the risk landscape demands.
Want to see how AI-built, expert-curated applications like Aravo’s new AI-Engineered Applications can help organizations rapidly turn emerging requirements and domain expertise into complete, purpose-built risk applications? Join our exclusive live webinar here.
Share with Your Friends: