One score per supplier created extensive manual work for audits and reporting 

When Wise moved its primary listing to Nasdaq, the volume and variety of third-party engagements increased. The team wanted a more granular view of the products, services and agreements within each supplier relationship, workflows proportionate to the nature and risk of each request, and more consistent process data across procurement, finance, legal and third-party risk, without adding unnecessary friction for requesters. The team's evaluation found that GRC platforms lacked the procurement functionality to support that, while purchase-to-pay platforms did not meet Wise's bar for third-party risk management.

Risk stopped at the supplier. In the previous setup, risk and materiality information was primarily represented at supplier level. When the same supplier provided several products or services with different characteristics, representing those distinctions could require additional records and manual consolidation. Wise wanted to capture the relevant information at the agreement, product or service level while retaining a consolidated supplier view.  

Multiple tools and a largely standard process. Procurement, Finance and third-party risk teams worked across multiple tools and hand-offs. The available process could not always vary sufficiently by request type, so standard lower-risk engagements and more material arrangements could follow similar paths. Wise wanted a common intake experience with workflows that could adapt to the nature, materiality and risk of each request. 

Limited end-to-end process data. Wise also wanted more consistent process data on cycle times, friction points, outcomes and risk. A shared view of that data would help teams prioritise improvements, measure their impact and make cross-functional planning decisions using the same information.