Comparing Third-Party Risk Management Approaches: A Deep Dive into Five Solution Types

The TPRM solution landscape can be complex, with hundreds of options available to address third-party risk management challenges. This post compares the five most common options.
By:
Scott Lang
,
VP, Product Marketing
June 18, 2024
Share:
2024 Blog Comparing TPRM Approaches

Organizations today work with an average of more than 3,000 third-party vendors, suppliers, and partners, according to the 2024 Third Party Risk Management Study. Unfortunately, the preponderance of manual approaches to third-party risk assessments means that most organizations can manage only a third of their vendors. Between expanding vendor ecosystems, pervasive third-party data breach threats, and increasingly aggressive regulatory oversight, managing third-party risks is now a critical function for organizations across every industry.

The complexity and volume of third-party relationships necessitate robust solutions to mitigate potential risks. However, with so many third-party risk management options available, how do you know which is best for your organization?

This post explores and compares the third-party risk management approaches of five types of solutions from least to most comprehensive: spreadsheets; cybersecurity risk rating tools; governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) tools; source-to-pay suites; and dedicated third-party risk management platforms. To do this, we examine the pros and cons and recommend an ideal fit for each approach.

TPRM Solution Types

Spreadsheets

Spreadsheets are undeniably popular for third-party risk management. Half of companies – especially small and midsized organizations – consistently use them. However, this approach has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Spreadsheets offer a low-cost, flexible, and familiar solution to managing questionnaire-based third-party risk assessments. However, they also have significant limitations in scalability, data integrity, collaboration, security, and advanced functionality, which impede their effectiveness in managing risks.

Pros of Using Spreadsheets for Third-Party Risk Management Cons of Using Spreadsheets for Third-Party Risk Management

Cost-Effective
Spreadsheets are usually part of office software suites, which many organizations already own and pay for out of the IT budget. This makes them a cost-effective option for TPRM teams—or one with at least a low initial cost that avoids the need for purchasing and implementing specialized risk management tools.

Scalability
Spreadsheets can easily become cumbersome and challenging to manage, especially with large vendor populations. Large datasets can slow down spreadsheet performance, leading to inefficiencies.

Flexibility and Customization
Spreadsheets are easily customized to fit specific risk management processes and templates. Almost anyone can adjust and modify them to accommodate changing needs and new data points.

Data Integrity and Accuracy
Spreadsheets are prone to human error like incorrect data entry, formula mistakes, and unintentional alterations. Spreadsheets also lack robust data validation mechanisms, which increases the risk of inaccurate or incomplete data.

Ease of Use
Most users know how to use spreadsheet software, so there’s no learning curve. Sharing information is also easier because stakeholders are familiar with the tool. Basic data visualization tools, such as charts and graphs, help illustrate risk data.

Lack of Advanced Features
Spreadsheets offer minimal automation, leading to time-consuming manual processes. They do not provide real-time monitoring or alerts for changes in third-party risk status, limiting their usage to questionnaire-based assessments.

Easy Access
Spreadsheets can be easily shared and accessed across different devices and platforms, ensuring that all relevant stakeholders can view and edit the data.

Collaboration Challenges (e.g., Version Control)
Managing multiple versions of a spreadsheet can lead to confusion, discrepancies, and version control problems. Limited support for real-time, multi-user collaboration (especially involving those outside the organization) can hinder program efficiency and coordination.

Security Concerns
Spreadsheets often lack advanced security features, making sensitive risk data vulnerable to unauthorized access and breaches, especially when shared with third parties. Implementing and managing access controls can be challenging, especially in larger organizations.

Static Reporting
Generating comprehensive third-party risk reports from spreadsheets can be labor-intensive and time-consuming. Reports are often static and do not provide dynamic, real-time insights into third-party risk.

As organizations grow and their third-party risk landscape becomes more complex, it may be a good idea to adopt more robust and specialized third-party risk management solutions that provide enhanced capabilities, automation, and real-time monitoring to effectively mitigate risks. The remainder of this blog examines some options.

Cybersecurity Risk Ratings Tools

Scoring tools, the most common of which are cybersecurity risk ratings services, focus on quantifying third parties' cybersecurity posture using externally identifiable data such as vulnerabilities, exploits, web application controls, and other public-facing information. These tools provide insights into potential cyber risks posed by third-party vendors and partners and present findings as a numerical risk score or letter grade.

Although they are a popular means of evaluating third-party risk, cybersecurity risk ratings services cannot conduct detailed internal controls assessments. Scoring tools are also siloed by risk type – cyber, ESG, financial, operational, compliance, reputational, etc. – requiring organizations to purchase different data feeds and integrate them for a comprehensive picture of third-party risk.

Pros of Using Scoring Tools for Third-Party Risk Management Cons of Using Scoring Tools for Third-Party Risk Management

Cyber Risk Specialists
These tools use various data sources (some owned, and others licensed) and methodologies to evaluate the cybersecurity strength of third parties, assigning scores based on their findings.

Cyber Only
Cybersecurity risk ratings tools are limited to cybersecurity risk only, lacking broader risk monitoring for business and financial problems, ESG findings, compliance and sanctions violations, and operational disruptions.

Continuous Monitoring and Alerting
Cybersecurity risk ratings tools offer ongoing monitoring of third-party cybersecurity practices and alert organizations to changes in risk levels.

Limited Questionnaire-Based Assessment
Most cybersecurity risk ratings tools are either unable to conduct questionnaire-based internal controls assessments or treat assessments as a post-monitoring afterthought, leaving unremediated risks. This is a non-standard approach, since most organizations prefer to first conduct internal controls assessments and then use external monitoring solutions to validate the vendor-reported data.

Data-Driven Insights
Cyber scoring tools leverage big data and machine learning to provide actionable insights and predictive analytics.

False Positives
Cybersecurity risk ratings tools are notorious for returning false positives. This can make it difficult for third-party risk teams to properly understand the true risks they face and require significant investigation time, distracting from important risk mitigation activity.

Cybersecurity risk ratings tools are meant for organizations that are only concerned with monitoring cyber risk – or that have the resources to stitch together multiple different monitoring feeds to address other types of risks. These tools also fall short for organizations that must adhere to regulatory requirements to understand the effectiveness of third-party internal IT security controls. This is why cybersecurity risk ratings tools are often used to complement more comprehensive solutions for assessing third-party risk.

Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) Tools

Governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) tools – sometimes referred to as enterprise risk management (ERM) or integrated risk management (IRM) – provide a broad approach to risk management. They are typically deployed across the entire enterprise and attempt to cover internal and external risks (e.g., third-party). For third-party risk, what GRC tools lack in depth, they often make up for in breadth across multiple risk types.

Pros of Using GRC Tools for Third-Party Risk Management Cons of Using GRC Tools for Third-Party Risk Management

Holistic Risk Management
GRC tools offer a unified platform to manage various types of risks, including third-party risks, within the context of overall enterprise governance and compliance requirements.

Lack of Third-Party Focus
Because many GRC tools offer a bolt-on module for third-party risk (usually acquired and integrated), they typically lack specialization and deep expertise in TPRM.

Policy Orchestration and Compliance Integration
GRC tools emphasize aligning third-party risk management with internal policies and regulatory requirements.

Complex and Costly Deployments
GRC tools are notoriously complex and can require significant customization to address the breadth of risks for which they are designed. The initial cost of purchasing and implementing GRC tools can be significant, which may be a barrier for smaller organizations.

Reporting and Analytics
GRC tools often come with robust reporting and analytics, facilitating comprehensive risk analysis and decision-making.

Extensive Resources Required
Ongoing maintenance and updates of GRC tools can be resource-intensive, requiring dedicated IT support.

Limited Help Available
Most GRC tools lack managed services to aid and augment internal IT security teams’ third-party risk assessment initiatives. Without extra scale, internal teams can fall behind in their assessments.

GRC tools are most common in larger organizations with significant budgets, where third-party risk is on equal footing with internal risks. Small and midsized organizations often don’t require a full GRC tool and may not have the resources necessary to operate one.

Source-to-Pay Suites

Source-to-pay (S2P) suites encompass the entire procurement process, from sourcing of direct and indirect products and services to payment. They often include third-party risk management modules as part of their broader procurement capabilities, alongside features for RFx management, contract lifecycle management, etc.

Pros of Using Source-to-Pay Suites for Third-Party Risk Management Cons of Using Source-to-Pay Suites for Third-Party Risk Management

Integrated Procurement and Risk Management
S2P suites integrate risk management into the procurement lifecycle, ensuring that risk considerations are factored into sourcing decisions.

Lack of Third-Party Focus
Like GRC tools noted above, many S2P suites offer a bolt-on module for third-party risk (usually acquired and integrated), and therefore typically lack specialization and deep expertise in TPRM – especially from the perspective of cybersecurity risks.

Supplier Evaluation and Onboarding
S2P suites offer tools for evaluating and onboarding suppliers, including risk assessments and compliance checks.

Focused on Early Stages
Because of their usage by procurement professionals, S2P suites often overlook broader risk aspects by focusing on sourcing, initially evaluating and onboarding vendors. Less consideration is paid to other important stages of the third-party risk lifecycle or to the unique concerns of IT security teams.

Contract and Performance Management
Source-to-pay suites help manage supplier contracts and performance, incorporating risk metrics and monitoring.

Limited Risk Assessment
S2P suites deliver risk insights through partnerships with data and risk intelligence providers, which is intended to score supplier risk and enable better decision making. However, the level of risk analysis typically included in most S2P suites is insufficient for ongoing risk management.

S2P suites are for larger organizations with large procurement budgets and a procurement-led focus that must manage multiple vendor and supplier relationships but have less focus on risk.

Dedicated Third-Party Risk Management Platforms

Dedicated third-party risk management platforms specialize in managing vendor and supplier risks. These providers focus on delivering comprehensive solutions designed to identify, assess, mitigate, and monitor risks associated with third-party relationships.

Pros of Using TPRM Platforms for Third-Party Risk Management Cons of Using TPRM Platforms for Third-Party Risk Management

Specialization
A TPRM platform’s laser-focused approach enables in-depth expertise and advanced functionalities tailored to third-party risk management.

Integration
Dedicated TPRM platforms are specifically designed to manage third-party risks, which may require integration with other risk management tools such as S2P suites, GRC tools, reporting platforms, etc.

Tip: Look for TPRM solutions that feature a library of pre-built integrations or an open API that can quickly speed the process.

Comprehensive Risk Assessment
TPRM platforms offer extensive risk assessment capabilities, including cybersecurity, financial, operational, regulatory, and reputational risk evaluations.

Proprietary or Non-Standardized Assessments
Be wary of overly customizing risk assessments; this can make comparing and scoring vendors less consistent.

Tip: Seek out TPRM solutions that offer an extensive library of standardized assessment templates.

Continuous Monitoring
TPRM providers typically offer real-time monitoring and alerting mechanisms to keep track of third-party risk status and changes in between regular assessments.

Siloed Monitoring Tools
Some dedicated TPRM platforms lack comprehensive continuous monitoring of multiple risk types beyond cybersecurity threats.

Tip: Investigate fully integrated platforms that deliver seamless integration between assessment findings and continuous monitoring results.

Lifecycle Coverage
TPRM platforms typically specialize in evaluating and mitigating risks across the lifecycle of the third-party relationship – from sourcing and selection to offboarding and termination.

Resource Flexibility
To accommodate growing numbers of third parties to assess, organizations may need to allocate appropriate resources.

Tip: Examine managed services options or networks of completed risk assessments to alleviate resource constraints.

TPRM platforms are ideal for organizations with multiple teams involved in managing third-party risk. They can benefit from unified risk intelligence, lifecycle-based risk remediation, and comprehensive support for multiple risk types.

Next Steps: Choosing the Right Approach to Managing Third-Party Risks

Selecting the right third-party risk management approach depends on an organization's specific needs, risk landscape, and resource availability.

  • Spreadsheets are generally easy to use but don’t scale or provide the analytical capabilities required to assess, score, or remediate third-party risks.
  • Cybersecurity risk ratings tools are used to prioritize cybersecurity risk over other risk categories.
  • GRC tools provide an integrated approach suitable for organizations with budgets to align third-party risk management with overall governance and compliance efforts.
  • Source-to-pay suites offer a solution for those looking to incorporate risk management into their procurement processes.
  • Dedicated third-party risk management providers offer specialized, advanced solutions ideal for organizations with significant third-party risk exposure.

By understanding the strengths and limitations of each approach, your organization can make informed decisions to effectively manage its third-party risks and safeguard business operations.

For more information on how Prevalent can help your organization ditch spreadsheets once and for all and implement an agile and comprehensive TPRM program, download our start-up guide 10 Steps to Building a Successful Third-Party Risk Management Program, or request a demonstration today.

Tags:
Share:
Leadership scott lang
Scott Lang
VP, Product Marketing

Scott Lang has 25 years of experience in security, currently guiding the product marketing strategy for Prevalent’s third-party risk management solutions where he is responsible for product content, launches, messaging and enablement. Prior to joining Prevalent, Scott was senior director of product marketing at privileged access management leader BeyondTrust, and before that director of security solution marketing at Dell, formerly Quest Software.

  • Ready for a demo?
  • Schedule a free personalized solution demonstration to see if Prevalent is a fit for you.
  • Request a Demo