{"id":12285,"date":"2026-06-23T09:46:10","date_gmt":"2026-06-23T14:46:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.carahsoft.com\/wordpress\/?p=12285"},"modified":"2026-06-23T09:46:12","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T14:46:12","slug":"onspring-automating-third-party-risk-management-sled-blog-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.carahsoft.com\/wordpress\/onspring-automating-third-party-risk-management-sled-blog-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Automating Third-Party Risk Management for Resource-Constrained SLED Teams"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

As third-party relationships in State, Local and Education (SLED) entities increase, so do the requirements for vendor due diligence, cybersecurity risk assessments, compliance oversight and ongoing monitoring. However, the staff and budgets necessary to support these growing responsibilities don\u2019t always keep pace. As a result, SLED teams are often asked to do more with less. One of the most effective ways to keep costs down while staying on top of these risks is through third-party risk management (TPRM)<\/a> automation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Manual TPRM Gets Wrong<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Traditional third-party risk management relies on spreadsheets, point-in-time evaluations and manual processes. But such practices are often ineffective and unscalable for the TPRM programs of State and Local Governments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Spreadsheet-Driven Approach Creates Blind Spots<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When every department uses its own spreadsheet to track third-party risks, vendor information gets scattered across multiple files. Cybersecurity, procurement, legal and compliance teams may each have a different piece of information about the same vendor, but none has a complete view due to departmental silos. As a result, it\u2019s easy to overlook important risk indicators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Manual Processes Increase Administrative Burdens and Slow Down SLED Teams<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Manual workflows for onboarding vendors, collecting security documentation and tracking regulatory compliance are time-consuming. Such tasks are another burden on SLED teams, some of which are already understaffed<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Static Assessments Disregard the Dynamic Nature of Third-Party Risks<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Traditional TPRM uses point-in-time assessments where you evaluate vendor risk only during onboarding and annual reviews. But a third-party risk can change significantly between assessments. Without continuous monitoring, you may not discover the change until the yearly review, leaving your institution or agency exposed to risks that have been growing for months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Traditional TPRM Promotes Reactive Rather Than Proactive Risk Management<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Old-school TPRM relies on static assessments rather than real-time monitoring. This means you generally identify security breaches only after an incident or during a scheduled review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why Automating Third-Party Risk Management Matters Now More Than Ever in SLED Organizations<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Manual TPRM can\u2019t keep up with the risk management challenges that SLED teams face today. Here\u2019s why automation is more important than ever before.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Expanding Vendor Ecosystems<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today’s SLED entities rely heavily on external partners to achieve operational resilience and efficiency. However, each third-party partnership comes with a risk that your organization must evaluate and monitor. And the more vendors you work with, the more difficult it is to manage them with manual processes and an understaffed team. Automation simplifies TPRM, no matter how many third parties you\u2019re dealing with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Resource Constraints and Staffing Challenges<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Public Sector entities often operate with limited risk management budgets and lean teams. In a 2026 NASCIO-Deloitte study<\/a>, for example, State chief information security officers said their budgets are getting tighter. They also struggle to find and retain people with the right cybersecurity skills, leaving teams understaffed and overworked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In another study by Carahsoft and Broadcom, 86% of cybersecurity decision-makers <\/a>in U.S. Government agencies said they expect an increase in incidents or data breaches due to budget cuts and headcount reductions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Managing risks manually in an expanding third-party ecosystem, relying on insufficient resources and personnel, is overwhelming and ineffective. Automation makes it easy to manage vendors at scale without increasing headcount.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How Automation Software Simplifies and Improves the Management of Third-Party Risks<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Third-party risk management solutions such as Onspring allow you to automate your TPRM program. But what are the benefits of TPRM automation<\/a> tools?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Centralized Vendor Risk Data Prevents Silos<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A TPRM automation solution provides a central platform to handle all your third parties, compliance requirements and contracts. You can manage the entire third-party lifecycle, from due diligence to offboarding, inside software that scales with your vendor or supplier ecosystem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of each department having its own TPRM system or using fragmented spreadsheets, cross-functional teams can collaborate in one place. With all vendor-related data in a centralized platform, teams can easily access consistent, up-to-date information without searching across multiple systems or files. They can also generate reports quickly without having to compile information manually from different sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Automated Risk Assessments and Workflows Reduce Manual Effort<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assessing vendors manually through email questionnaires, spreadsheets and follow-up requests for documentation is very slow and difficult to scale as the number of third parties grows. To simplify the process, a powerful automation solution lets you:<\/p>\n\n\n\n