As the other poster states; this is a Governance and documentation issue.
If Policy and Procedures don't have a clear "approval" process defined, you may have a harder time.
My process is similar. TRPM approval is required for all non-critical third party engagements (so, I do have final say; to an extent).
If it's critical, then the Board Risk Committee has to approve; and they look to me for guidance (that is, did it pass TPRM and do I recommend approval). I know the "approval" in the second line is a bit controversial; but everyone kept asking for my approval, so if they want me to have the job, I took it and put it in policy.
That said, in procedures, they can escalate to CRO, GC and Board Risk Committee. So I can tell the list line, if you disagree with them and still want to move forward, follow this process (and I have a form) and seek approval from CRO, GC and BRC. That all gets documented.
btw, no one has yet sought to escalate to BRC for Approval. a few went to CRO and GC... both said, what did TPRM say? when they responded that TPRM didn't approve. both CRO and GC said. "you might want listen to TPRM." no one has gone to the Board to override me, yet. :-)
That doesn't solve your problem. I know. What you may want to do is walk the business unit through the bad day scenarios. and if they still want to move forward with management blessing, then insist on a short term contract 12 months or less... when it goes sideways you want to be able to get out without too much pain.
Good luck!
------------------------------
Bradley Martin
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-01-2022 01:26 PM
From: Anonymous Member
Subject: Vendor Management Disagrees with Business Owner
This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous
Our Vendor Management typically does not make decisions about Business Owner vendor choices as long as the due diligence passes our criteria, and Technology and Project Management sign off.
Right now, we are reviewing a vendor that doesn't seem like a good fit for our organization, has provided two consecutive years of unaudited financials that are so different they can't be compared, has some adverse media, is too new to have complaint history, etc. This vendor also has the potential to drive volume in customer service areas, and the Business Owner cannot explain the vendor's process without going to the vendor.
This is the first time that Vendor Management has recommended that we pass on this one for now, and re-visit in a year or two. The Business Owner wants to move forward with this "future facing" vendor. VM has requested that representatives from all potentially impacted areas meet to talk about this vendor and decide as a group. Since this approach has not been needed previously, we're getting some push back.
Any tips for handling this situation?