Feeling lost in a sea of “next‑gen” risk tools that all promise unified visibility and maturity? We break the cycle of flashy demos and stalled implementations with a practical, research‑backed way to evaluate vendors and build a roadmap that actually advances your program. Anchored by the IRM Navigator Curve from Wheelhouse Advisors, we chart the journey from fragmented, audit‑driven dysfunction to a destination we call risk agency, where human judgment and machine action work together within clear guardrails.

We unpack the five maturity levels—foundational, coordinated, embedded, extended, autonomous—and show how progress depends on investing across four domains in sequence: GRC for policies, ERM for goals, ORM for processes, and TRM for assets and telemetry. The core message is simple and urgent: you cannot buy your way into maturity. Without unified policies, goals, and workflows, advanced tech becomes an expensive documentation tool. To cut through marketing noise, we share a two‑minute, three‑question diagnostic that slots any vendor: 1) which domain does it improve next, 2) does it unify or deepen silos, and 3) does it reduce work or only document it. Then we map real‑world vendor profiles to the curve to illustrate exactly where each solution can take you.

You’ll leave with a decision framework that drives strategic budgeting, prevents lateral moves into better silos, and focuses every purchase on measurable progress. We also point to Vendor Compass and Sonar research from Wheelhouse Advisors that assess market leaders and innovators like Riskonnect, ServiceNow, OneTrust, Archer, and top consultancies through this lens. Ready to replace feature checklists with a roadmap to risk agency? Follow, share with your team, and tell us where your program sits on the curve and what’s blocking your next step.

Wheelhouse Advisors’ YouTube channel delivers fast, executive-ready insights on Integrated Risk Management. Explore short explainers, IRM Navigator research highlights, RiskTech Journal analysis, and conversations from The Risk Wheelhouse Podcast. We cover the issues that matter most to modern risk leaders. Every video is designed to sharpen decision making and strengthen resilience in a digital-first world. Subscribe at youtube.com/@wheelhouseadv.

Don't forget to subscribe on your favorite podcast platform—whether it's Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

Please contact us directly at info@wheelhouseadvisors.com or feel free to connect with us on LinkedIn and X.com.

Visit www.therisktechjournal.com and www.rtj-bridge.com to learn more about the topics discussed in today's episode.

A hard truth drives this conversation: leaders are seeing the risks but not making the moves. We unpack the 76–42–22 drop-off, visibility to engagement to action, and show why the real bottleneck isn’t data, it’s decision architecture. If your board keeps asking for tighter numbers and firmer timelines, you’re living the reporting plateau. Precision can be counterproductive for emerging risks: it invites model debates, signals high-cost commitments, and rationalizes delay.

We walk through a better path built on solution options. Instead of fear-based dashboards, bring low regret actions that borrow existing budgets, quantify the cost of waiting, and sequence work across quarters. A simple shift to training three cross-functional leads on new AI rules, wiring KRIs to a pilot, and setting a Q3 decision point turns a vague threat into a paced plan. Boards respond to choices and trade-offs, not speculative confidence intervals.

To make this repeatable, we use the IRM Navigator model: GRC, ERM, ORM, and TRM working in balance. ERM ties risks to growth, margin, and launch timelines so decisions map to value. ORM surfaces real-time KRIs and near misses to anchor action in reality. TRM connects controls to live telemetry, enabling continuous monitoring and swift technical adjustments. GRC provides the rigor to document, test, and assure. Together, the four domains deliver PRAC: performance, resilience, assurance, and compliance without sacrificing speed.

We share a concrete action plan: audit your investment asymmetry, kill problem-precision packets, adopt solution-options reporting, wire ORM and TRM into analysis, and measure success by decision velocity. Vendors and advisors are shifting too, judged by how quickly they convert a signal into a board-approved step. If you want your organization to move when the stakes are highest, build the emerging risk reflex now.

If this resonated, follow the show, share it with a colleague who owns risk or strategy, and leave a quick review with your biggest takeaway. What low regret move will you make this quarter?

Don't forget to subscribe on your favorite podcast platform—whether it's Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

Please contact us directly at info@wheelhouseadvisors.com or feel free to connect with us on LinkedIn and X.com.

Visit www.therisktechjournal.com and www.rtj-bridge.com to learn more about the topics discussed in today's episode.

The latest episode of The Risk Wheelhouse tackles one of the strangest sights in this year’s risk technology landscape. The 2025 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Governance, Risk, and Compliance arrives with an empty Visionaries quadrant. No challengers, no upstarts, just silence where innovation used to live. Rather than treating this as a warning sign, Ori Wellington and Sam Jones explain why the quiet is a signal that GRC has finally stabilized into what it was always best suited to be: the institutional assurance backbone that proves what happened, preserves the evidence, and keeps auditors, regulators, and boards on solid ground.

From there, they draw a clear line between GRC’s retrospective role and the forward-looking mandate of Integrated Risk Management. The conversation traces how GRC has narrowed to serve assurance leaders, why verification alone cannot answer questions about resilience and performance, and how IRM steps in as the unifying management layer that connects ERM, ORM, TRM, and GRC. Along the way, Ori and Sam unpack the PRAC model, position technology risk as the binding agent across the stack, and introduce “assurance intelligence” as the capability that turns static audit results into real-time decision input. A concrete firewall example shows what it looks like to move from “48 of 50 passed last quarter” to “our resilience score just dropped and we need action today.”

If you own risk, audit, compliance, or technology strategy, this episode will help you reframe GRC as essential infrastructure rather than a silver bullet platform. You will come away with a clearer understanding of why the Visionaries disappeared, how IRM now carries the integration agenda, and what it will take to move from evidence on paper to assurance that actually shapes decisions. For greater insights, read Wheelhouse Advisors’ IRM Navigator™ Vendor Compass for Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) - 2025 Edition.

Don't forget to subscribe on your favorite podcast platform—whether it's Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

Please contact us directly at info@wheelhouseadvisors.com or feel free to connect with us on LinkedIn and X.com.

Visit www.therisktechjournal.com and www.rtj-bridge.com to learn more about the topics discussed in today's episode.

The ground under GRC is shifting, and it’s not subtle. We break down how unified integrated risk management is replacing checklist compliance with an operating model that ties performance, resilience, assurance, and compliance together. From AI governance to ESG at the board level, we follow the money, the deals, and the data to show where risk management is actually going—and how to get there without drowning in spreadsheets.

We dive into why AI governance is now table stakes for any serious IRM platform, what an effective AI registry and dynamic risk assessment look like, and how automated compliance mapping to the NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001, and the EU AI Act changes daily work. Along the way, we unpack recent moves like AuditBoard’s AI-focused acquisition and its expanded alliance with a major consultancy, illustrating why services plus software has become the adoption formula. On the ESG front, partnerships that link board reporting with carbon accounting signal a deeper integration of climate and sustainability data into operational risk and financial performance.

For leaders in regulated industries, we highlight practical gains from automated evidence collection, pre-built control content, and faster audit cycles—and we hammer on outcome proof as the only real test of integration. You’ll leave with three actionable steps: treat AI governance as foundational, demand verified customer outcomes, and pair your platform with expert implementation to deliver value in 90 days. We close by exploring the next frontier: agentic AI for continuous control monitoring, and the new risks that come when machines start guarding the machines. Subscribe, share with a colleague who owns risk or audit, and leave a review telling us the one metric you need to trust a platform’s integration.

Don't forget to subscribe on your favorite podcast platform—whether it's Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

Please contact us directly at info@wheelhouseadvisors.com or feel free to connect with us on LinkedIn and X.com.

Visit www.therisktechjournal.com and www.rtj-bridge.com to learn more about the topics discussed in today's episode.

Resilience isn’t a binder anymore. It’s a live system that has to perform under pressure. We pull apart the 2025 IRM Navigator™ Vendor Compass for Operational Risk Management (ORM) to show how ORM moved from back-office compliance to the execution engine of enterprise resilience. The stakes are massive. They include billions in spend, tighter regulations across the US, UK, and EU, and a rising demand for continuous, auditable proof that controls actually work when services fail.

We break down where ORM sits inside integrated risk management and how it turns risk appetite into daily action across business continuity, incident and loss event operations, KRIs, EHS, and deep third-party and supply chain risk. Then we unpack the four structural drivers forcing change: buyers rewarding measurable outcomes over feature checklists, resilience defined as end-to-end service delivery, assurance-grade automation with transparent trust layers and data lineage, and the hard convergence of TPRM with continuity and incident response as vendor failures directly hit customer experience. If one in three major incidents involves an external partner, vendor monitoring can’t live on the sidelines.

To make this practical, we map the vendor landscape across two dimensions—solution coverage and level of integration—and explain three categories that align to your maturity curve. Integrators like Riskonnect and IBM OpenPages centralize claims, continuity, RCSAs, KRIs, and loss events under strong governance for complex enterprises. Accelerators such as ServiceNow, Hyperproof, and Safe Security embed controls and monitoring into existing workflows fast, moving teams from coordinated to embedded. Pace setters like Fusion Risk Management, ProcessUnity, and Origami Risk deliver targeted wins in resilience mapping, third-party risk, and incident-to-claims operations.

The takeaway is simple: aim for defensible operational assurance without drowning in manual work. As AI-native runbooks evolve by simulating impacts, selecting responses, and triggering mitigation with audit-ready evidence the question becomes whether your current telemetry and control data will meet disclosure-grade standards. Subscribe, share with your risk and operations teams, and leave a review with your biggest challenge. Where are you on the maturity curve, and what proof do you still need?

Don't forget to subscribe on your favorite podcast platform—whether it's Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

Please contact us directly at info@wheelhouseadvisors.com or feel free to connect with us on LinkedIn and X.com.

Visit www.therisktechjournal.com and www.rtj-bridge.com to learn more about the topics discussed in today's episode.

Your “encrypted” data may still be regulated and today the rules start to bite. We unpack how the Department of Justice’s Data Security Program moves from guidance to strict enforcement and why it reframes data governance as a national security mandate. From redefining “covered data” to treating anonymized and encrypted datasets as in-scope when they enable linkage or inference, we walk through what changes right now for risk leaders, counsel, and compliance teams.

We detail the two buckets that matter: prohibited transfers that stop cold, and restricted transfers that demand verifiable, ongoing controls. You’ll hear how the rule targets six countries of concern, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela, and why your contracts, audits, and vendor oversight must reach beyond first-line providers into sub-processors and hidden supply-chain links. We share a practical playbook: deep data mapping across systems and shadow IT, tiered vendor due diligence that verifies beneficial ownership and jurisdictional exposure, and contract clauses that add audit rights, localization, and explicit DSP obligations. Training becomes the connective tissue so sales, procurement, and operations can spot and halt restricted transactions before they happen.

Zooming out, we connect compliance to resilience. Treat this as a defense capability: build architectures that segment sensitive data, constrain cross-border flows, and maintain auditable trails. Prepare for forced decoupling scenarios with diversified providers and kill-switches. The hard question we leave you with: how many tiers deep should your due diligence go to prove control under this new national security lens? Press play to learn the steps to take today, and the mindset shift that will keep you both compliant and resilient. If this was useful, follow the show, share it with your team, and leave a review so more leaders can find it.

Don't forget to subscribe on your favorite podcast platform—whether it's Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

Please contact us directly at info@wheelhouseadvisors.com or feel free to connect with us on LinkedIn and X.com.

Visit www.therisktechjournal.com and www.rtj-bridge.com to learn more about the topics discussed in today's episode.

Autonomous IRM is moving from the lab into the core of enterprise risk, compliance, and security and the stakes couldn’t be higher. When a self-learning agent flags threats, scores claims, or polices policy violations, who is accountable, how do we intervene, and what proof can we show regulators and customers? We unpack the three frameworks shaping credible answers: ISO/IEC 42001 as a certifiable management system that embeds AI governance into everyday processes, the EU AI Act as hard law with high‑risk tiers and eye‑watering fines, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework as a practical playbook for building trustworthy systems.

We start with the boardroom view: why ISO 42001 pays off in demonstrable maturity, how the EU AI Act elevates AI to enterprise risk with penalties up to seven percent of global turnover, and where NIST establishes a common language (fairness, transparency, security, and accountability) that unites legal, risk, and engineering. Then we translate strategy into execution. You’ll hear how to build an AI Management System on PDCA, run gap assessments for high‑risk use cases, design human-in/on‑the‑loop oversight, and stand up continuous monitoring, logging, and post‑market incident reporting. We also break down NIST’s Govern‑Map‑Measure‑Manage flow so teams can pilot on a few use cases, validate bias and robustness, and scale with confidence.

Finally, we tackle the accountability puzzle of autonomous agents. ISO demands end‑to‑end auditability and explainability across the lifecycle. The EU AI Act limits unchecked autonomy, mandates human oversight, and bans dangerous applications like social scoring and manipulative systems. NIST frames the agent as a socio‑technical system that needs named owners, security guardrails, bias evaluation, and contingency plans. Through scenarios (cyber threat detection in banking, fraud triage in insurance, and an autonomous IRM assistant) we show how to layer the frameworks: law sets the what, ISO and NIST deliver the how.

If you’re a leader or operator wrestling with when to certify, where to place the human, and how to future‑proof global deployments, this conversation gives you a clear path forward. Subscribe, share with your risk and engineering teams, and leave a review with the one governance action you’re committing to this quarter.

Don't forget to subscribe on your favorite podcast platform—whether it's Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

Please contact us directly at info@wheelhouseadvisors.com or feel free to connect with us on LinkedIn and X.com.

Visit www.therisktechjournal.com and www.rtj-bridge.com to learn more about the topics discussed in today's episode.

Corporate governance is undergoing a revolution in the UK, and Provision 29 of the 2024 Corporate Governance Code stands at the epicenter of this transformation. Far beyond traditional financial oversight, this groundbreaking rule mandates unprecedented transparency from company boards about their internal controls across all domains – financial, operational, compliance, and critically, technology.

Taking effect in 2026, Provision 29 requires boards to actively monitor and review their risk management frameworks, describe their methodology in annual reports, and make clear declarations about control effectiveness. The scope extends well beyond balance sheets to embrace cybersecurity, data protection, and even AI governance – reflecting a world where digital vulnerabilities can pose greater material risks than accounting errors. Our deep dive reveals that while 82% of FTSE 350 companies are planning for implementation, only 30% clearly address non-financial reporting controls, and the number confidently declaring effective systems has dropped from 50% to just 32% as companies apply more rigorous self-assessment.

The financial commitment is substantial – £300,000 to £1.5 million for initial implementation depending on company size and complexity, with ongoing annual costs between £125,000 and £250,000. Yet market trends show approximately half of companies will voluntarily seek external assurance despite no mandate, recognizing this as strategic reputation insurance. Forward-thinking organizations are leveraging Integrated Risk Management platforms to create unified control frameworks, typically reducing redundant controls by 15-30% while enabling automated evidence collection and continuous monitoring. By 2027, experts predict two-thirds of FTSE 350 companies will manage financial and non-financial controls within single integrated systems.

This shift toward comprehensive transparency isn't just another compliance exercise – it represents a fundamental rethinking of corporate accountability. As boards become more forthcoming about what's working and what isn't, we're left with a provocative question: Will this unprecedented visibility foster greater trust in business, or simply invite more intense scrutiny? For investors, business leaders, and governance professionals alike, understanding these changes is essential for navigating the new landscape of corporate transparency and trust.

Don't forget to subscribe on your favorite podcast platform—whether it's Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

Please contact us directly at info@wheelhouseadvisors.com or feel free to connect with us on LinkedIn and X.com.

Visit www.therisktechjournal.com and www.rtj-bridge.com to learn more about the topics discussed in today's episode.