For governance programs that are technically sound but organizationally broken. PivotRisk designs the ownership, workflows, and decision rights that make the program run, anchored to a capability model you can inspect before we start.
You can have the best control library in the industry and still underperform. The programs that struggle usually have the same symptoms: findings that age instead of closing, escalations that route by personality instead of by path, committees that review but never decide, and a first line that experiences governance as something done to it. None of that is a framework problem. It is an operating model problem, and no amount of new tooling fixes it.
Every exam and every audit arrives at the same three questions: who owns this risk, who decided this exception, and where is that written down? This engagement exists so those questions have a one-page answer, because ownership was designed, not inherited.
The design work is anchored to the PivotRisk capability model, a public reference of what a GRC and resilience function must be able to do. You can inspect the starting point before you pay for the tailoring.
Interviews with the people who run and receive governance, review of the artifacts that exist, and a plain statement of where work actually stalls. The diagnosis names mechanisms, not people.
Each capability mapped to an accountable owner across the three lines, using the reference model as the checklist so nothing is owned twice and nothing is owned by no one.
How an issue moves from detection to decision, with named handoffs and time expectations, so escalation is a route, not a relationship.
Charters, membership, cadence, and above all decision rights: what each forum is allowed to decide, so meetings end with decisions on record instead of another review.
Taxonomy, scoring model, and appetite framework, integrated into the operating model rather than bolted on, so a threshold breach actually triggers the forum designed to hear it.
A sequenced plan for moving from current to designed state, built with your leaders in working sessions, because a model designed with people gets adopted and one delivered to them gets shelved.
Capabilities, owners, workflows, and forums in one document, written to be shown to an examiner, not just filed.
Who is accountable, who is consulted, and where an issue goes next at every step, on a page your first line can actually use.
Each governance body chartered with what it decides, not just what it discusses.
The order of changes, the dependencies between them, and the early wins that fund the patience for the rest.
Where the program hurts, what has been tried, and whether the appetite for structural change is real. Honest answers save both of us time.
Interviews and artifact review against the reference model. You see the diagnosis before any design work starts.
Working sessions with the leaders who will own the model. Ownership, forums, workflows, and risk architecture take shape with the people accountable for them in the room.
The blueprint and sequenced plan handed over, with your team able to run it. Ongoing support is available as a fractional retainer if you want it.
No. The capability model is the checklist that makes sure nothing gets missed, not a template your org chart has to match. The design maps your organization against it and keeps what already works. The model bends to you, not the other way around.
Almost never. The design lands on the people you already have; the work is deciding who owns what and writing it down. It removes forums more often than it adds them, because a committee that cannot decide anything is a cost, not a control.
Please do. Start with The GRC Operating Model Is the Program, then Regulatory Change Is an Operating Model Problem. If the articles read like your program, the engagement will feel familiar on day one.
Scope and price are set in the first conversation, sized to your organization.