Latest Articles

Cyber GRC Is Moving from Reacting Faster to Predicting Earlier, Governing Smarter, and Connecting Risk Across the Enterprise The New GRC Reality GRC is rapidly becoming AI-first. Organizations are embedding AI across risk identification, assessment, and response to move beyond manual processes and backward-looking analysis . Predictive intelligence, automated controls testing, and real-time risk insights now allow security and risk teams to anticipate threats before they materialize . This marks a fundamental transition: from reacting to cyber incidents to building proactive cyber resilience at scale. AI for GRC vs. GRC for AI The transformation is unfolding across two critical dimensions : Dimension Description AI for GRC How AI redefines how organizations monitor, assess, and respond to risk GRC for AI Governing AI systems themselves as they scale across the enterprise How AI Is Transforming GRC Operations Continuous Control Monitoring AI systems validate control effectiveness by analyzing system logs, configurations, and audit artifacts on an ongoing basis. This shifts assurance from periodic testing to continuous validation . Risk Identification and Prediction By integrating internal telemetry with external threat intelligence, AI-driven models can identify emerging threats before they materialize. This represents a shift from static risk registers to adaptive, real-time risk management . Regulatory Mapping and Compliance Reporting AI systems interpret regulatory texts and map them to internal controls, generating audit-ready narratives and automating compliance documentation . Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) Agentic AI replaces periodic, questionnaire-driven assessments with continuous monitoring models. AI agents can autonomously retrieve vendor data, validate responses, and correlate external risk signals . The Human Element Human expertise remains central to this model. Risk leaders provide oversight, validate AI-driven recommendations, and apply judgment to ensure decisions align with business priorities and regulatory expectations . What This Means for Your Organization In 2026, Cyber GRC will move from reacting faster to predicting earlier, governing smarter, and connecting risk across the enterprise . Organizations that embrace AI-first GRC will be better positioned to anticipate threats, respond faster, and build lasting cyber resilience. Action Items for Your Organization Assess your current GRC maturity—are you still using manual processes? Identify where AI can automate risk identification, assessment, and response Evaluate AI-enabled GRC platforms Start with a pilot for continuous control monitoring Measure the reduction in manual effort and risk response time  

Third-Party Data Breaches Increased 49% — Why TPRM Is Now the Top Security Priority The TPRM Reality Third-party risk has become the primary attack surface . Third-party data breaches increased 49% year-over-year between 2023 and 2024, and 74% of security professionals cite insufficient vendor security as their biggest concern . The September 2025 Jaguar Land Rover attack is a stark example: production halted for five weeks, triggering supply chain disruptions, with economic losses amounting to nearly £1.9 billion . The M&S 2025 cyber attack led to losses across multiple critical areas, with M&S's market value falling by over £700 million . The TPRM Challenge Manual Processes 34% of organizations admit they still rely on manual spreadsheets to identify and manage third-party risks . Budget Volatility When organizations face budget reductions, active team involvement in TPRM drops to 52%, compared to 84% in environments with expanding budgets . Vendor AI Risk Vendor AI governance introduces new challenges. A vendor tool that initially enters as a productivity assistant may later gain access to emails, meeting notes, internal documents, and customer records—significantly changing its operational risk profile after procurement . How AI Is Transforming TPRM Agentic AI is replacing periodic, questionnaire-driven assessments with continuous monitoring models : Traditional TPRM AI-Powered TPRM Periodic assessments Continuous monitoring Manual questionnaires Automated data retrieval Static risk scores Dynamic risk scoring Point-in-time snapshots Real-time visibility Reactive (after breach) Proactive (before breach) Providers such as Wipro and HCLTech are augmenting their GRC and TPRM capabilities through AI-driven document processing and ecosystem integrations . The Continuous TPRM Model In 2026, modern organizations are centralizing third-party workflows within a dedicated platform to ensure : Clear ownership of vendor relationships Automated reassessment cadences Continuous evidence tracking Integration with external risk signals Real-time risk scoring Key TPRM Questions When evaluating vendor AI risk, organizations should ask : Does the vendor use customer data to train models? Which subprocessors provide AI capabilities? Is there human review for high-impact outputs? Are prompts, outputs, and decisions logged? Has the vendor done an AI impact/risk assessment? The Regulatory Driver Government agencies have begun actively offboarding contractors who fail to meet strict Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) mandates or cannot guarantee that controlled unclassified information (CUI) is housed in a FedRAMP Moderate authorized environment . Conclusion Third-party risk management is no longer confined to initial vendor onboarding—it has become an ongoing operational requirement. Organizations that centralize TPRM workflows, implement continuous monitoring, and assess vendor AI risk will reduce their primary attack surface. Action Items for Your Organization Inventory all third-party vendors with access to your systems or data Implement automated TPRM workflows Assess vendor AI risk Establish continuous monitoring for critical vendors Define reassessment cadences Integrate TPRM with your risk register  

The AI GRC Tool Gap — Why 86% of Teams Say AI Compliance Products Aren't Enterprise-Ready The Tooling Problem Despite the rapid adoption of AI for GRC, the tools themselves are falling short. Drata's research found that 86% of teams agreed that many AI products aimed at governance, risk, and compliance are not ready for large organizations . Organizations are becoming less patient with products that do not work as expected. Three-quarters of organizations said they now stop using underperforming AI tools more quickly than before, and more than half said they return to manual processes when those tools fall short . What's Wrong with Current AI GRC Tools? Limited Visibility The tools aren't providing the visibility needed. With 87% of organizations lacking full visibility into AI tools, the tools meant to provide governance aren't delivering . Incomplete Readiness 83% of respondents said they were not fully prepared for the next wave of AI integration . The tools are moving faster than organizations can adopt them. Poor Fit for Enterprise Needs 86% of teams say AI GRC products are not ready for large organizations. The features may work for smaller organizations but don't scale. The AI GRC Adoption Gap Challenge Percentage Organizations without full AI visibility 87% Teams saying AI GRC products aren't enterprise-ready 86% Organizations not prepared for next AI wave 83% Organizations abandoning underperforming AI tools quickly 75% The Buyer Shift Some 64% of respondents said they would rather use targeted agentic AI systems than broad all-in-one platforms . This shift suggests organizations are moving away from monolithic GRC platforms toward specialized AI agents that deliver specific, measurable outcomes. The Performance Problem 90% of respondents said at least some AI investments had fallen short of expectations . While the study did not break down these disappointments in detail, the broader results suggest that weak oversight, unclear ownership, and limited readiness remain major barriers. What Organizations Are Doing About It Organizations are returning to manual processes when tools fail—more than half said they return to manual processes when AI tools fall short . This suggests that AI GRC tools are not yet reliable enough to fully replace manual workflows. Conclusion The AI GRC tool market is still maturing. Organizations should approach AI GRC tools with clear expectations, start with pilots, and maintain manual fallback processes. The next decade in GRC will belong to organizations that buy, build, deploy, fine-tune, and benefit from agents that own specific outcomes and hold vendors accountable when those outcomes fail . Action Items for Your Organization Evaluate AI GRC tools carefully before purchasing Start with pilots for specific use cases Maintain manual processes as a fallback Hold vendors accountable for outcomes Measure AI GRC tool performance rigorously    

AI Systems Are the Fastest-Growing Risk — 87% of Organizations See AI Vulnerabilities as Top Cyber Risk The AI Risk Imperative The WEF Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2026 highlighted that 87% of respondents identified AI-related vulnerabilities as the fastest-growing cyber risk . As enterprises accelerate AI adoption, AI systems themselves are becoming a major source of cyber and operational risk. Issues around data integrity, model security, bias, explainability, and regulatory compliance are now front and center . The AI Governance Framework To govern AI effectively, organizations need a structured approach across the AI value chain : 1. Discover: Establish Visibility The starting point is full visibility. Organizations must establish a comprehensive view of all AI assets across the enterprise, including models, datasets, and agents . 2. Classify: Implement Risk-Based Classification Once visibility is established, organizations must implement risk-based classification frameworks aligned with emerging regulations such as the EU AI Act. This involves assessing AI systems by risk tier and evaluating attributes such as fairness, bias, and explainability . 3. Monitor: Continuous Oversight AI models are inherently dynamic, requiring real-time monitoring for drift, bias, and performance degradation. This ensures AI systems remain trustworthy throughout their lifecycle . 4. Control: Enforce Runtime Guardrails CISOs must enforce runtime controls and guardrails to manage AI behavior in production environments. These controls prevent unsafe outputs, enforce organizational policies, and trigger remediation workflows . Key AI Governance Questions As AI governance becomes a core pillar of cyber resilience, organizations need clear accountability structures, risk assessments for AI use cases, and controls aligned to emerging regulations and ethical standards . Critical questions for every AI deployment: What data is used to train the model? How are decisions explained and justified? Who is accountable for AI decisions? How is bias monitored and mitigated? What happens when the model fails? The AI Incident Challenge AI incidents are different from traditional incidents. They require dedicated governance : Incident Type Description AI exposure of sensitive data AI system leaks confidential information Unauthorized AI action AI agent takes action without approval Discriminatory outputs Model generates biased or non-compliant outputs AI compliance failures AI produces inaccurate compliance artifacts AI model drift Model behaves differently after update Conclusion Without robust governance, AI can amplify risk faster than traditional systems. With it, AI becomes a powerful enabler of secure, resilient, and responsible innovation . Organizations need to build AI governance as a core capability, not an afterthought. Action Items for Your Organization Establish a centralized AI inventory Implement risk-based AI classification Define AI incident response playbooks Assign accountability for AI governance Monitor AI for drift and bias Prepare for EU AI Act compliance (August 2026 deadline)

Headline: A Control with No Owner Is Just a Good Intention The Ownership Imperative A control with no owner is just a good intention. Without clear accountability, controls: Fall out of date Stop operating effectively Are not tested or monitored Fail during audits Create gaps in risk coverage Effective controls management requires clear ownership and accountability. Defining Control Ownership Role Responsibility Control Owner Accountable for the control's design, operation, and effectiveness Control Operator Executes the control activity Control Tester Tests control effectiveness Control Approver Approves control changes or exceptions Control Ownership in Practice Control Owner Responsibilities: Ensure the control is designed effectively Monitor control operation Address control failures Coordinate testing Maintain control documentation Review and update controls regularly Approve exceptions Control Operator Responsibilities: Execute the control activity Document evidence of execution Report issues to the control owner Follow defined procedures Control Tester Responsibilities: Test control effectiveness Document test results Report findings Recommend improvements The Business Context Layer By integrating identity context into the CMDB, organizations can link identity and risk signals to controls and services : Add a risk-aware business lens: Business services can be enriched with identity-derived risk signals such as user sensitivity, segregation-of-duties violations, and access sprawl  Drive smarter ITSM decisions: Incident prioritization, change approvals, and request fulfillment can factor in identity risk  Improve visibility for governance: Linking identity to CIs and services creates a complete picture for access reviews, policy enforcement, and exception handling  The Problem with Fragmented Ownership The consequence of fragmented ownership: Controls are duplicated across teams Controls are inconsistent Accountability is unclear Gaps emerge between what documentation says and what actually happens The solution: Clear accountability structures Documented ownership in risk and control matrices Regular reviews of ownership assignments The Regulatory Driver Regulators increasingly expect clear accountability for controls. Frameworks like COSO and COBIT emphasize the importance of control activities and their ownership. Boards and regulators are demanding to know: Who is responsible for each control? How do we know controls are operating effectively? What happens when controls fail? Effective controls management requires clear ownership and accountability. Conclusion Control ownership and accountability are the foundation of effective controls management. Organizations that assign clear ownership, define responsibilities, and maintain accountability structures will have controls that operate effectively and withstand audit scrutiny. Action Items for Your Organization Assign clear ownership for all controls Document owner responsibilities Identify control operators and testers Review ownership assignments regularly Ensure owners have the resources and authority they need  

Service Request Management Is No Longer Just for IT — Here's Why That Matters The ESM Expansion Service request management is no longer confined to IT. The same principles — service catalogs, workflows, SLAs, and self-service — are being applied across HR, finance, legal, and facilities . Enterprise Service Management (ESM) extends the proven ITSM model beyond IT by adapting the same organized, efficient approach for other business areas . Where ESM Is Being Adopted Department Common Service Requests HR Benefits questions, leave requests, payroll issues, onboarding Finance Expense approvals, procurement requests, budget inquiries Legal Contract reviews, compliance questions, document access Facilities Office space, equipment, maintenance, parking IT Access, hardware, software, troubleshooting Why ESM Matters The Cross-Department Reality HR services rarely operate in isolation. Many requests depend on timely input from other departments, such as IT, finance, payroll, procurement, and compliance. ESM systems thrive when cases can move smoothly from one team to another . The Employee Experience Impact Every service interaction — whether HR, IT, finance, legal, or facilities — contributes to a perception of your organization's competence . Fragmented service experiences across departments create frustration and reduce trust. Research confirms the trend: Market research shows organizations expanding ESM programs are prioritizing common taxonomies, governance alignment, and operating readiness before choosing tools  Platform consolidation and enterprise-wide unified service operation models are the way forward, as companies recognize that only a unified, orchestrated ecosystem can support AI-driven service delivery and reduce complexity  Case Study: HR Service Delivery with ESM SAP SuccessFactors Enterprise Service Management adapts ESM for HR's unique system and service needs, providing : Intuitive self-service: Agentic AI offers employees instant answers and guidance A unified workspace: Central UI with core data from employee records Preconfigured HR service scenarios: Ready-to-use templates for common HR cases Smart case management: AI-guided workflows, case classification, and recommendations Actionable insights: Analytics on case volumes, service performance, and SLA compliance Cross-Department Service Scenarios Onboarding Process Employee onboarding requires coordination across HR, IT, facilities, finance, and security. ESM orchestrates tasks through shared workflows and data, providing employees with a single guided experience while ensuring every team completes their responsibilities on time . Payroll Discrepancy Management Resolving payroll issues requires gathering and validating information across different systems and teams. AI-backed case management systems help service representatives gather correct details, route issues to appropriate experts, and resolve discrepancies quickly . Best Practices for ESM Implementation Start with high-volume, cross-department processes like onboarding or expense approval Build common taxonomies so all departments use the same language Establish cross-department governance to ensure consistency Use a unified platform rather than separate department solutions Measure the end-to-end experience, not just department-specific metrics Conclusion Service request management is evolving beyond IT to become an enterprise-wide capability. Organizations that embrace ESM will deliver a more consistent employee experience, reduce fragmentation, and improve operational efficiency across all service functions. Action Items for Your Organization Map service delivery across all departments — where is it fragmented? Identify cross-department processes that could be unified Define common taxonomies and service categories Evaluate ESM platforms that support multiple departments Start with a pilot in one non-IT department, then expand