The Risk Wheelhouse

S5E7: Stop Buying Better Silos: How the IRM Navigator™ Curve Exposes RiskTech Hype

• Wheelhouse Advisors LLC • Season 5 • Episode 7

Share episode

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.



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

Subscribe at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Amazon Music. Contact us directly at info@wheelhouseadvisors.com or visit us at LinkedIn or X.com.

Our YouTube channel also 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.


Sam Jones:

If you are leading a risk function, maybe prepping for a board meeting, or even just trying to get your arms around the technological chaos that surrounds integrated risk management, you definitely know the feeling.

Ori Wellington:

Oh, absolutely.

Sam Jones:

You log into a professional site, you go to a conference, and you are just immediately drowned.

Ori Wellington:

Drowned is the right word.

Sam Jones:

Drowned in the sea of hundreds of vendors. And all of them are promising next-gen GRC, holistic risk management, or you know, the holy grail, unified visibility. Right. They all claim to deliver maturity, they all claim efficiency, and their feature sets, at least on paper, all seem to overlap. It's a genuine labyrinth.

Ori Wellington:

It's the perfect storm. You've got information overload on one side and just relentless marketing on the other. And we see organizations making these massive technology bets based on things like a slick user interface, or maybe they're chasing a single feature they saw in a demo.

Sam Jones:

Right. The one shiny thing.

Ori Wellington:

The one shiny thing. And worse, they often rely on these vague, kind of self-applied maturity labels from their internal teams that don't truly reflect the organization's actual capability.

Sam Jones:

So what's the core problem with that approach?

Ori Wellington:

The core problem is that none of this surface level evaluation, it doesn't reveal the technology's true fitness. And crucially, it doesn't tell you where it fits within your organization's specific risk ecosystem.

Sam Jones:

Exactly. So what happens is buyers end up implementing systems that might be excellent in their own little niche, but they inevitably just deepen the existing organizational silos. They don't unify the risk capability. You just pay a lot of money to automate your own fragmentation.

Ori Wellington:

A very expensive way to stand still.

Sam Jones:

Okay, let's unpack this because if the market is that noisy, we desperately need a reliable signal, a true diagnostic tool. We do. And that is why we are dedicating this entire deep dive to the IRM navigator curve. This model, it was developed by Wheelhouse Advisors, and it's explicitly designed to be a faster, far more reliable assessment tool for buyers.

Ori Wellington:

It is. It synthesizes two utterly critical dimensions. You have the five established integrated risk management maturity levels. Okay. And then you have the four underlying investment domains that you have to shift to actually drive that progression.

Sam Jones:

The strength of this model, then, must be its ability to tie that strategic investment to measurable maturity.

Ori Wellington:

That's exactly. It moves the whole conversation away from just feature checklists and puts it squarely on strategic roadmapping. It's a visual and a quantifiable measure of progression, which, as we both know, the risk technology market desperately, desperately lacks.

Sam Jones:

It gives you, as the risk leader, a way to answer the CEO's question. Are we truly getting better or are we just spending more?

Ori Wellington:

The million-dollar question.

Sam Jones:

Our mission today is pretty comprehensive. We're going to thoroughly understand this curve. We're going to map the full necessary journey that it describes, and then we're going to give you the essential practical two-minute test. Three simple questions you can use immediately to slot any vendor into this strategic framework. And ultimately, we want to show how this roadmap guides an organization out of the chaos toward the model's ultimate destination, which they define as risk agency.

Ori Wellington:

And just before we dive in, a key point on sources the foundational research for this deep dive, it comes directly from the creators of the model, Wheelhouse Advisors, and it's detailed in the Risk Tech Journal. Right. For those of you looking for the real world application of this quick test, you know, with detailed vendor analysis, you can find specific research and a ton of resources applying this model on their site, which is wheelhouseadvisors.com.

Sam Jones:

Let's begin by painting the scene with the two extremes, because to navigate any path, you have to know your starting point and you have to know your goal.

Ori Wellington:

Of course.

Sam Jones:

So in the world of risk management, whether it's IT, enterprise, or operational, what defines that starting swamp, that chaotic, unsustainable state that they label risk dysfunction? And what is that ideal transformative destination risk agency?

Ori Wellington:

Okay, so on the far left of the curve, we find risk dysfunction. And the organizational cost of just living there is enormous.

Sam Jones:

I can imagine.

Ori Wellington:

The state isn't just about having bad technology. It's characterized by risk activities that are inherently fragmented, reactive, and often purely driven by basic minimum-level compliance requirements.

Sam Jones:

The bare minimum.

Ori Wellington:

The bare minimum. Think of it as a series of isolated manual checkpoints and audits that, frankly, nobody really trusts.

Sam Jones:

Okay, so what does that fragmentation look like in a real meeting? If I'm sitting in a room, what am I seeing?

Ori Wellington:

You're seeing this. The IT security team runs a vulnerability scan and they generate a spreadsheet.

Sam Jones:

The classic spreadsheet.

Ori Wellington:

The classic spreadsheet. Meanwhile, the operational compliance team runs a risk and control self-assessment, an RCSA, in a completely separate tool. And then the finance team is over here calculating enterprise risk based on totally different metrics and yet another tool.

Sam Jones:

So no one's talking to each other.

Ori Wellington:

Nobody has a unified view. You are constantly reinventing the wheel, you're wasting countless hours in aggregation, and the data is stale before it even hits the board report.

Sam Jones:

It's just compliance instrumentation. It's proof you did a thing.

Ori Wellington:

Exactly. It's proof you did a thing, but it's not proactive risk management. It's management by a mandatory checklist.

Sam Jones:

So if dysfunction is fragmented, reactive, and driven by that minimum compliance.

Ori Wellington:

Yeah.

Sam Jones:

What defines that aspirational goal state risk agency on the far, far right of the curve?

Ori Wellington:

Risk agency is fundamentally defined by the convergence of human agency and machine agency. Okay. The model is very specific about this. They have to work together symbiotically. In this goal state, the uh the human element is lifted above all that manual labor.

Sam Jones:

So they're not just crunching numbers.

Ori Wellington:

They're not. They gain integrated visibility, they can see the whole picture in real time, and they get effective decision support, which allows them to focus on strategy and nuance.

Sam Jones:

And the machine. What's its role?

Ori Wellington:

The machine agents, so the integrated technology stack, they extend that human agency. They take action autonomously, but, and this is critical, only within validated guardrails.

Sam Jones:

Guardrails set by the humans.

Ori Wellington:

Set by the humans. This is where true autonomous capabilities emerge. It's the difference between, say, documenting that a server is at risk and having the system recognize the risk, cross-reference the policy, and automatically segment that server from the core network before a human even has time to log in. Wow. Risk agency means the system is managing and mitigating threats dynamically.

Sam Jones:

That distinction is profound. It's like the difference between getting an alert that your engine light is on and having the car automatically pull over, diagnose the issue, and order the necessary part, all within the guardrails of acceptable risk defined by the human driver.

Ori Wellington:

That's a perfect analogy. But here is the critical principle the curve illustrates. You cannot buy your way into maturity. It just doesn't work. You can purchase the most advanced machine learning platform available, but if your investment strategy and your organizational integration are still stuck back in dysfunction, you've just invested in a very expensive documentation tool.

Sam Jones:

The Formula One car on a gravel road.

Ori Wellington:

Exactly. Progress requires two simultaneous realignments. It's not just about the tech.

Sam Jones:

Okay. Let's delve into those required realignments, because this sounds like where the strategy has to come in before you even think about buying technology.

Ori Wellington:

The first is the realignment of investment across risk domains. And this is a financial and a cultural commitment. Okay. Organizations often stall because they pour all their resources into one domain, let's say GRC, and then they expect that single investment to magically solve operational and technology risk problems.

Sam Jones:

Which it can't.

Ori Wellington:

It can't. You must strategically shift your focus, sequentially moving the bulk of your investment from compliance documentation, which is GRC, up through strategic alignment, ERM, then operational efficiency, ORM, and finally into technology integration or TRM.

Sam Jones:

That sounds like a tough sell to a CFO who just wants a single system to solve everything. Why does it have to be a sequential shift?

Ori Wellington:

Because the domains build on each other. And the second realignment really explains why. You need the integration of core elements. Okay. The whole goal of the IRM navigator curve is to weave your organizational goals, your operating processes, your technological assets, and your governing policies into a single unified operating system.

Sam Jones:

So they're all interconnected.

Ori Wellington:

They have to be. If you don't define your GRC policies correctly, you can't define your ERM goals reliably. If your ERM goals are vague, your ORM processes won't be aligned with the right strategic priorities.

Sam Jones:

And if your processes are disconnected from your TRM assets. So the technology is just the vehicle, the roadmap and the foundational infrastructure, that unification of policies, goals, processes, and assets, that's what guarantees you actually move forward. This framework really forces you to recognize that political and organizational SIDOs are the primary enemy of progression, not a lack of technological features.

Ori Wellington:

That's it, exactly. The journey is deliberate, it's sequential, and it requires that deep alignment. It's a move from reacting to a specific regulation to proactively embodying risk agency by having a unified adaptive system.

Sam Jones:

Now that we understand the strategic endpoints, the start and the finish, let's look at the engine of the curve itself. Okay. We have these five distinct maturity levels running vertically, which define where you are, and then four investment domains running horizontally, which define how you fuel the movement to the next level. We need to get into the detail here so our listeners can clearly differentiate between these steps.

Ori Wellington:

Let's start with the five levels of maturity because understanding the leap between each stage is absolutely crucial for any kind of strategic planning. The first level is foundational. This is ground zero. Risk activities here are isolated, they're minimal, and they're usually handled by, you know, manual spreadsheets, basic email reporting, and a reliance on documents stored in shared drives.

Sam Jones:

So chaos.

Ori Wellington:

It's defined by documentation only. If you ask, is our risk management integrated? The honest answer is no, but we have a binder of evidence somewhere.

Sam Jones:

Foundational is all about checking boxes to satisfy auditors, but it offers zero real-time insight to management.

Ori Wellington:

None. Exactly. So the second level is coordinated. This is the first real step toward organization. Okay. The focus here shifts to standardized reporting and workflow automation. You're finally moving off of spreadsheets and into a formal GRC tool.

Sam Jones:

A single source of truth, sort of.

Ori Wellington:

Sort of. You might automate simple compliance tasks, route control documents for approval, or generate regular reports. Structure starts to emerge, but the activity is still heavily siloed. The GRC team might coordinate things, but they aren't integrated with the operational or the technology teams.

Sam Jones:

So coordinated moves from chaos to internal order. We've automated the routing, but we haven't automated the thinking.

Ori Wellington:

Well said.

Sam Jones:

What's the major functional leap to get to the next level to embedded?

Ori Wellington:

Embedded is transformative. This is a big jump. The focus becomes real-time monitoring and most importantly, embedding risk processes within the core business operations.

Sam Jones:

So it's not a separate activity anymore.

Ori Wellington:

It's not. Risk management stops being an after-the-fact check, which is what it is in the coordinated stage, and starts becoming integral to how the business actually runs.

Sam Jones:

Can you give me an example?

Ori Wellington:

Sure. Think of a supply chain process. At the coordinated level, a human reviews the vendor's security certificate once a year and files it away. Check the box. Check the box. At the embedded level, the system automatically ingests continuous data about that vendor's security posture and it flags a specific operational process owner before the contract renewal even comes up because a vulnerability was detected two weeks ago.

Sam Jones:

Ah, so it's proactive.

Ori Wellington:

It's proactive. This is where true decision support providing suggested actions based on live data really materializes.

Sam Jones:

That makes the distinction so clear. Embedded moves from managing documents to managing actual processes. Now, what defines the leap from there to extend it?

Ori Wellington:

Once an organization masters that internal integration that you see at the embedded level, the focus naturally expands. It goes outward and it gets more analytical. Okay. So the fourth level, extended, centers on third-party risk management and advanced cross-domain analytics. You start connecting the previously siloed data points. Like what? For instance, linking a low performance score on an internal operational metric, which is an OIM thing, to a high vulnerability score on the underlying IT system, which is TRM.

Sam Jones:

So you're not just seeing the risk in your own department, you're seeing the dependencies and the ripple effects across the entire enterprise and then outward to your vendors and partners.

Ori Wellington:

You've got it. Correct. And the ultimate destination is the fifth and final level, which is autonomous.

Sam Jones:

RISK agency.

Ori Wellington:

This is the state of risk agency, characterized by self-healing systems, intelligent orchestration, and machine-assisted testing and response. The systems manage known threats, they autonomously validate compliance status, and they initiate mitigation actions without constant human involvement.

Sam Jones:

Aaron Powell But that has to require a really mature, unified data structure.

Ori Wellington:

It's impossible without it.

Sam Jones:

So these five levels give us the vertical progression, the increasing sophistication. But let's go back to the strategic fuel, the four investment domains. What is the organization actually buying to make these leaps?

Ori Wellington:

The investment has to be strategic and it has to be sequential. The curve maps out the required shifts in both financial and uh focus resources. Okay. An organization's journey starts by investing heavily in GRC, that's governance, risk, and compliance. This investment is what's necessary to move from foundational to coordinated.

Sam Jones:

And what's the focus there?

Ori Wellington:

The focus here is establishing the organizational policies. You are buying tools to define, to document, to enforce, and to attest to your controls. It's the essential infrastructure for any subsequent progress.

Sam Jones:

Makes sense. If you don't define the rules, the policies, you can't coordinate anything.

Ori Wellington:

Exactly. Then as the organization transitions from coordinated to embedded, the investment strategically shifts to ERM enterprise risk management. Okay. This is the shift from just following the rules to strategically managing the business. The focus is on organizational goals.

Sam Jones:

What does that involve?

Ori Wellington:

This involves defining your risk appetite, quantifying exposure, connecting risks to strategic business objectives, and enabling that real strategic decision making at the leadership level.

Sam Jones:

So moving from just policy compliance to strategic goal alignment, that sounds like a major cultural shift, not just a technology one.

Ori Wellington:

It absolutely is. It's huge. Next, the transition from embedded to extended requires a heavy focus on ORM operational risk management. Right. Once risk is embedded in the processes, you need the tools to manage the daily execution. The focus here is on the organizational processes.

Sam Jones:

What does ORM focus on specifically that ERM doesn't? They sound a little similar.

Ori Wellington:

That's a great question. ERM is top-down strategy. ORM is bottom-up execution. ORM focuses on identifying process risks, tracking key risk indicators or KRIs like say system downtime exceeds 1% of operating hours, managing the resulting issues, coordinating remediation efforts, and supporting rigorous risk and control self-assessments.

Sam Jones:

This is the day-to-day battleground.

Ori Wellington:

It is. If you're the person responsible for running a business unit, ORMM is where you live, making sure those embedded controls are working effectively.

Sam Jones:

So we have GRC for policies, ERM for goals, and ORM for processes. Where does the final investment domain, the one necessary for autonomous capabilities, lead us?

Ori Wellington:

The final necessary expansion is from extended to autonomous. And this is where investment expands heavily into TRM technology risk management. This domain focuses on the organizational assets. This includes tools for managing the technology assets themselves, validating identities, tracking vulnerabilities, assessing the posture of third-party vendors, which is an extension of your assets, and ingesting those vast continuous streams of signals or telemetry that power autonomous action.

Sam Jones:

This detailed structure really emphasizes that the whole journey is about the unification of those four core elements policies, goals, processes, and assets in that specific sequence. Yes. If you try to jump straight to advanced TRM capabilities without the foundational GRC policies or the ORM process workflows in place, you are basically guaranteed to fail.

Ori Wellington:

You are. The technology will have nothing consistent to act upon.

Sam Jones:

That's the core insight of the IRM navigator curve, then. Any perceived shortcut, like buying a sophisticated tool from an advanced domain like TRM, when you are still foundational in GRC.

Ori Wellington:

It'll just create a new expensive silo and it will stall your overall progression. The framework insists on logical, integrated steps.

Sam Jones:

This is where we shift from the theory to immediate practical application for our listeners.

Ori Wellington:

The good stuff.

Sam Jones:

The really good stuff. If you're a risk professional or procurement leader, you are constantly facing vendor demos. How do you cut through all the marketing fluff and apply this IRM navigator curve in real time? We need to drill down into that three-question quick test that defines a vendor's strategic placement in under two minutes.

Ori Wellington:

This test is all about bypassing the vendor's stated mission and diagnosing the platform's actual functional gravity. We're looking at where their engineering muscle is concentrated and what tangible change they deliver to the buyer.

Sam Jones:

Okay, let's start with question one.

Ori Wellington:

Question one. What risk domain does the platform improve next? This defines the platform's investment anchor. And the key here is specificity. Where does the buyer see the most material, measurable, incremental uplift and capability?

Sam Jones:

Let's elaborate on the subtle differences in the answers you might get. A vendor might claim, oh, we handle compliance, but what kind of compliance are we talking about?

Ori Wellington:

Precisely. If they primarily focus on giving you a centralized repository for policy documentation or automating control assurance cycles, helping you gather evidence for SOC2 or ISO 27000001, and managing audit attestations, they are fundamentally anchored in GRC.

Sam Jones:

They're strengthening the foundation of your policies.

Ori Wellington:

They are. If, however, the platform's unique strength is integrating top-down strategic documents, helping you define and model different risk scenarios against enterprise objectives, calculating residual risk relative to your defined risk appetite, then they are anchored in ERM.

Sam Jones:

Helping you align with goals.

Ori Wellington:

Correct.

Sam Jones:

And what about the difference between that operational and technology focus?

Ori Wellington:

An ORM anchored vendor is all about the process owners. Their main selling point is often incident management, or streamlining the process of risk and control self-assessments, the RCSAs, or integrating key risk indicators directly into line of business applications.

Sam Jones:

So they help manage the day-to-day risks inherent in the processes.

Ori Wellington:

They do. A TRM anchored vendor, on the other hand, is all about the inputs from the digital environment. Their core is usually managing technology assets, ingesting vulnerability data from scanners, validating user identity and access, or rapidly assessing third-party vendor security posture.

Sam Jones:

They focus on assets and that telemetry you mentioned. So that clarity on the domain anchor is step one. It reveals which element policies, goals, processes, or assets will be improved, and that defines your next incremental step on the curve.

Ori Wellington:

And step two is the real litmus test for maturity. Question two Does it unify risk information across domains or does it just deepen silos?

Sam Jones:

This is so important.

Ori Wellington:

It is. This reveals if the platform is truly integrated or if it's just an excellent silo tool.

Sam Jones:

So how do we listen for the difference in a demo? What are the tells?

Ori Wellington:

Okay, so if the vendor presents a powerful feature rich solution that only addresses one domain, let's say it's the best tool on the market for managing vendor contracts and security ratings, but that information is not automatically linked to the financial risk register in ERM or the internal process controls in ORM.

Sam Jones:

Then it's a silo.

Ori Wellington:

It falls squarely into the lower two levels, foundational or coordinated. It reinforces the silo. You're automating a single vertical, but that vertical still doesn't talk to the rest of the organization.

Sam Jones:

So the platform itself becomes the new, more expensive silo.

Ori Wellington:

Exactly. True progress, the kind that aligns with embedded or extended, requires demonstrated, actionable integration across multiple domains. They need to show you how a change in a GRC policy immediately and automatically impacts an ORM process metric or an ERM risk calculation.

Sam Jones:

Show, don't just tell.

Ori Wellington:

Right. And if the vendor starts talking about applying machine intelligence to make those connections automatically, you know, cross-referencing thousands of data points to validate status without human intervention, then you're starting to look at the capabilities required for autonomous.

Sam Jones:

That is a fantastic way to filter out the empty integrated claim. If they can't show you the unified data schema, they are just a better silo. Now for the third, and I think often the most revealing question: the nature of the output.

Ori Wellington:

Yes. Question three. Does the platform meaningfully reduce risk work or does it only document it? This determines the capability depth and how far along that rightward progression the vendor truly sets.

Sam Jones:

Okay, break that down for us.

Ori Wellington:

If the platform's main output is just a better organized repository of policies and evidence, but you still need human auditors or manual assessments to validate that evidence, the capability is limited to foundational. It only documents.

Sam Jones:

What about workflow automation? A lot of vendors talk about that.

Ori Wellington:

Workflow automation, things like automatically routing an RCSA form for a manager's sign-off or assigning a control task that speeds up the process, but it doesn't reduce the cognitive load of the assessment itself.

Sam Jones:

So that's still pretty basic.

Ori Wellington:

That places the platform firmly in the coordinated stage. It makes the existing work faster, not smarter.

Sam Jones:

So what's the leap to embedded?

Ori Wellington:

The leap to embedded is when the system moves to decision support. It aggregates risk data from various systems, and it suggests the optimal mitigation strategy or resource allocation. The human still pulls the trigger, but the system has significantly reduced the cognitive burden by providing a clear, informed choice.

Sam Jones:

And what are the signs of extended capability depth? How do we know we're moving past embedded?

Ori Wellington:

Extended capability depth is defined by continuous telemetry and cross-domain insights. This is when the platform is constantly ingesting real-time operational data from IT systems, IoT devices, cloud environments, and correlating it across domain lines.

Sam Jones:

So it's alive.

Ori Wellington:

It is. You get a living 360-degree view, moving beyond periodic decision support to continuous intelligence.

Sam Jones:

And the final step.

Ori Wellington:

Finally, autonomous depth is confirmed by machine-assisted testing and response. Here, the system is not just suggesting things, it is initiating actions. Like what? Quarantining endpoints, automatically updating firewit rules, or validating control status based on continuous monitoring data. It embodies true machine agency all within those human-defined guardrails.

Sam Jones:

That three-question diagnostic tool domain anchor, unification, and capability depth is really the strategic shortcut we talked about.

Ori Wellington:

It is.

Sam Jones:

It strips away all the marketing jargon and it forces the conversation back to the strategic gain on the progression map.

Ori Wellington:

Now let's see how combining those three diagnostic answers provides that immediate, unambiguous clarity. This is how you can instantly slot any vendor and define their strategic value. Okay. This is how the model simplifies strategic decision making in what is a very complex market. We can run through, say, four specific common profiles you will definitely encounter when you're evaluating vendors.

Sam Jones:

Let's do it.

Ori Wellington:

Example A. Let's say a platform is heavily focused on improving GRC.

Sam Jones:

Okay, the foundational stuff.

Ori Wellington:

Right. When you ask about unification, you find the data is largely stored internally. It's separate from your core asset data or your operational metrics, so it does not unify data.

Sam Jones:

It's a silo.

Ori Wellington:

It's a silo. And its primary functional gain is helping auditors gather, store, and organize policy documentation and evidence. This means it largely documents work.

Sam Jones:

Okay, so GRC focus, no unification, and it's documentation only. That vendor is a definitive foundational platform.

Ori Wellington:

Exactly.

Sam Jones:

It's essential for compliance cleanup, maybe, but it will not drive strategic change.

Ori Wellington:

Correct. Now let's consider example B. A platform that's anchored in ERM. It claims high strategic value, and when you test it, it shows it can effectively unify risk registers and connect those risks to the specific corporate objectives defined in the ERM framework.

Sam Jones:

So it's got unification.

Ori Wellington:

It does. And furthermore, its features provide genuine decision support, helping executives model the impact of different strategic risks and allocate mitigation resources effectively.

Sam Jones:

Advancing ERM, unifying the strategic data, and providing decision support. That is the definitive profile of an embedded system. Spawn on. That platform is enabling the integration of risk into strategic operations, which is a crucial step beyond just simple coordination.

Ori Wellington:

Now, example C a platform with a strong anchor in ORM focused on that process level efficiency. It effectively integrates operational KRIs and remediation tickets across multiple business processes, so it's demonstrating high-level unification. And its capability depth goes beyond just decision support. It provides continuous telemetry and cross-domain insights, showing you how a process failure on the manufacturing line relates to a specific IT vulnerability.

Sam Jones:

Why? So it's connecting the dots, advancing ORM and providing continuous cross-domain insights. That means that platform is positioned in the extended stage. That's right. It has mastered internal embedding, and now it's leveraging continuous analytical intelligence across the whole ecosystem.

Ori Wellington:

And finally, example D. A platform where the next material lift for you would be in TRM, focusing on technology assets and vulnerabilities. It demonstrates integration of telemetry across your endpoints and cloud environments, linking asset status directly to policy status. Okay. And critically, its depth includes features that automate validation or initiate machine-assisted responses, requiring minimal human intervention once it's configured.

Sam Jones:

That platform is leveraging technology assets and machine agency to achieve that final stage. Autonomous. This is the future of the technology, the highest point on the curve. So what does this all mean? We've got the structure, we've got the diagnostic test, but why must senior executives really commit to using this curve? What's the ultimate strategic significance here?

Ori Wellington:

The primary value is it's risk mitigation of the investment itself. The reality is that IRM technology implementation often fails, not because the technology is bad, but because the purchase was misaligned with the organization's current maturity level. They bought an extended platform when what they really needed was foundational GRC cleanup first. The IRM navigator curve simplifies evaluation by tying all those vendor claims back to one single crucial question. Does this platform advance our organization toward risk agency, or will this purchase merely keep us entrenched in risk dysfunction?

Sam Jones:

It forces strategic budgeting. You stop getting distracted by the shiny features of some high-end TRM tool, and you focus on whether your foundational GRC and ERM are solid enough to even support that next step.

Ori Wellington:

Exactly. If you identify your organization as currently being embedded, the only technologies you should be evaluating are those that demonstrably deliver the necessary ORM or extended capabilities. This framework helps you say no to politically motivated purchases and maintain a roadmap that's grounded in measurable progression.

Sam Jones:

So every investment is guaranteed to be a step forward.

Ori Wellington:

It ensures every investment aligns with advancing the unification of your organization's goals, processes, assets, and policies.

Sam Jones:

I love that. It turns the entire vendor selection process from a simple feature comparison exercise into a rigorous roadmap alignment exercise. You're buying a strategic step forward, not just a product.

Ori Wellington:

And that clarity is so vital, especially when you have two vendors with very similar marketing. By focusing on the incremental investment gain, is it a GRC gain or an ERM gain, and the degree of unification it delivers, you can make a strategic decision rooted in the curve's progression. It guarantees a step forward, not just a lateral shift in another silo.

Sam Jones:

This framework is such a powerful conceptual tool, but for organizations that are ready to apply this and build their measurable roadmap, they need to see this diagnostic lens applied in the real world, you know, assessing the actual industry leaders. Where can our listeners see the IRM navigator curve put into action?

Ori Wellington:

This is where the model really transitions from being a theoretical map to an applied research tool that's essential for strategic procurement. Organizations can, and frankly, absolutely should reference Wheelhouse Advisors Vendor Compass series. Okay. This research series is dedicated to rigorously applying the IRM navigator curve and its detailed evaluation criteria to assess providers across the IRM 50, which are the leading integrated risk management vendors in the market today.

Sam Jones:

So these reports aren't just like product reviews. They are strategic placement guides based on the very progression we've been detailing.

Ori Wellington:

Precisely. They explore the primary IRM market segments, assessing the top vendors in each based on where they anchor on the curve, is their primary strength GRC, RM, or TRM, and how far along that maturity curve they can demonstrably take a customer.

Sam Jones:

That's incredibly useful. Let's review which specific segments are already covered by this analysis so people know where to start.

Ori Wellington:

Sure. Wheelhouse Advisors has recently published vendor compass reports that focus on the initial and middle segments of the curve. So that's governance, risk and compliance, GRC, operational risk management, ORM, and also risk management consulting.

Sam Jones:

Why consulting?

Ori Wellington:

Because the partners you choose to help implement are just as critical as the software. These reports are crucial for buyers looking to solidify their foundational and coordinated stages, helping them distinguish between providers who are excellent at basic compliance infrastructure versus those who can truly facilitate the embedding of risk into processes.

Sam Jones:

And as organizations plot their shift toward the extended and autonomous stages, they'll need guidance for those higher-end domains as well.

Ori Wellington:

Yes. The strategic journey continues with upcoming vendor compass reports. Those will focus on enterprise risk management, ERM, which facilitates that coordinated to embedded shift by aligning goals, and technology risk management, TRM, which is the necessary domain investment for moving toward the extended and autonomous levels by integrating your assets.

Sam Jones:

So it's an ongoing research program.

Ori Wellington:

It is. This ongoing research allows organizations to track vendor capabilities against the model's progression in effectively real time.

Sam Jones:

Beyond the established market leaders, the curve must also be invaluable for tracking where innovation is emerging, especially with disruptive technologies like AI.

Ori Wellington:

Oh, it's a key function of the model. The IRM Navigator curve is essential for assessing true disruption versus just marketing hype. For this, Wheelhouse Advisors also publishes the IRM Navigator Sonar Reports. These reports profile the emerging vendors in each IRM market segment that are leading innovation. They specifically focus on the advanced capabilities required for the far right side of the curve, such as AI risk management and crucially autonomous IRM.

Sam Jones:

So it grounds the discussion of these future technologies in the reality of the progression map. Can you highlight some of the specific industry players that are assessed using this rigorous framework just to give people a sense of the scope?

Ori Wellington:

Absolutely. The research provides deep actionable profiles on market leaders such as Risk Connect, ServiceNow, OneTrust, and Archer.

Sam Jones:

The big names.

Ori Wellington:

And the big names. And it also includes consulting leaders like KPMG and EY, who often guide these massive deployment projects. The value of this research is that it doesn't just describe the products, it uses the curve to assess exactly where each vendor helps the client advance.

Sam Jones:

So for example, the research might indicate that while Vendor X is a powerhouse in ORM and has strong GRC features, its path to true autonomous TRM integration relies heavily on external APIs and is therefore currently assessed at the upper end of the extended capability depth. That kind of insight changes the strategic buying conversation entirely.

Ori Wellington:

Precisely.

Sam Jones:

It makes it a conscious choice.

Ori Wellington:

It does. Risk leaders and senior executives looking to deploy IRM technology will find these vendor compass and sonar reports a must-read because the analysis is grounded in the strategic clarity of the IRM navigator curve.

Sam Jones:

We've taken a really comprehensive deep dive into charting the path to risk agency. The market may be overwhelming, but the strategy is now clear.

Ori Wellington:

It is.

Sam Jones:

The journey moves from fragmented risk dysfunction to unified risk agency by strategically shifting investment through those four domains. Policies with GRC, goals with ERM, processes with ORM, and finally assets with TRM.

Ori Wellington:

And you now possess the diagnostic tool, that three-question quick test, to immediately strip away vendor marketing. What domain does it improve next? Does it unify or deepen silos? And does it reduce work or just document it?

Sam Jones:

That test allows you to guarantee that your next purchase is a true step forward on your strategic roadmap.

Ori Wellington:

It does.

Sam Jones:

I think the most powerful takeaway for me is realizing that technology is only an accelerator. The complexity of the risk technology market is solvable, but only when you view it through the lens of measurable progression and unification.

Ori Wellington:

The tools are available, but the commitment has to be strategic.

Sam Jones:

That leads us to our final thought for you to Chuan, something that builds on this structural model but addresses the deeper cultural challenge. If the technology is ready, but your organization is stalling, what political or cultural misalignment, maybe a lack of collaboration between your technology team and your operational process owners, is currently the biggest roadblock, preventing your own organization from making that crucial shift from an embedded system where risk is within processes to an extended one where you utilize continuous telemetry and cross-domain analytics. The map is drawn. Now you have to tackle the internal resistance to follow it.

Ori Wellington:

And if you need detailed guidance on where specific vendors align within this critical model, including that in depth analysis of industry leaders, make sure you reference the resources from Wheelhouse Advisors. You can find all their detailed research on vendor placement and roadmapping at wheelhouseadvisors.com.

Sam Jones:

That's all the time we have for this deep dive. We hope this framework gives you the clarity you need to navigate the risk tech market with confidence. We'll talk to you next time.