AI GOVERNANCE & RESPONSIBLE AI
Your AI Risks Need Decisions, Evidence and Owners. Give the Program a Working Structure.
Teams use AI in different products and processes. One policy leaves risk reviews inconsistent. Leadership needs to understand intended use, affected people, evaluation and residual risk. We help apply NIST AI RMF to the AI activities you agree to place in scope.
Free 30-minute NIST AI risk strategy call. No obligation.
01
Experience behind the advice
Every NIST AI RMF alignment engagement is led by Temi, with 20+ years of security, audit and governance experience and more than 100 assessments across industries. Temi’s consulting experience includes Amazon, Walgreens and Humana.
- CISA
- CISM
- CRISC
- CDPSE
- PCI-QSA
A voluntary risk framework, applied to your context
NIST AI RMF 1.0 organizes AI risk management around Govern, Map, Measure and Manage. It is voluntary and does not issue a certification. The work uses these functions to connect organizational responsibilities to system context, evaluation evidence and risk treatment.
What alignment looks like in practice
| Function | Questions for your team | Working record |
|---|---|---|
| Govern | Who approves AI use, sets risk criteria and receives escalations? | Roles, policy and decision authority |
| Map | What is the intended use, context, affected people and dependency chain? | System context and impact/risk record |
| Measure | What evaluation evidence supports quality, safety, security and other relevant risks? | Evaluation requirements, measures and limitations |
| Manage | Which risks are treated, monitored, accepted or escalated? | Actions, owner decisions and monitoring triggers |
Generative AI uses also need attention to relevant risks and context. The NIST Generative AI Profile informs review where applicable; it is not represented as a mandatory checklist or proof of safety.
Who this work supports
This work supports teams developing or using AI who need a consistent way to assign responsibilities, understand system context, review evaluation evidence and record risk decisions. Product, engineering, security, privacy and business owners contribute according to the uses in scope. Bring the customer, management or release decision driving the work so the proposal addresses the evidence your team needs.
What you get
| Deliverable | Contents | Decision supported |
|---|---|---|
| AI scope/context inventory | Systems, uses, stakeholders, dependencies and assumptions | Which risks and impacts need assessment |
| RMF alignment assessment | Current activities, evidence and gaps across the selected framework outcomes | Where governance and risk work needs improvement |
| Risk/evaluation register | Risks, measures, reviewed evidence and limitations | What needs technical evaluation or management judgment |
| Accountability and treatment plan | Owners, actions, dependencies and risk decisions | Who acts and what supports closure |
| Monitoring/review design | Change triggers, measures, escalation and record ownership | How the program stays current |
| Management readout | Significant gaps, trade-offs and next steps | Which governance priorities leadership should approve |
How the engagement works
Define the AI activities and business decisions in scope. Review existing policy, inventory and risk practices. Interview accountable teams and inspect available evaluation evidence. Map gaps to the selected outcomes. Present the operating model and actions.
Choose the governance route matching your goal
| Goal | Route |
|---|---|
| Establish a voluntary AI risk operating approach | NIST AI RMF Alignment |
| Prepare an AI management system for certification assessment | ISO 42001 Readiness |
| Map legal obligations by AI system and role | EU AI Act Readiness |
These routes share evidence where useful. Each still answers its own decision question.
Alignment questions
Will we be NIST certified?
No. NIST AI RMF is a voluntary risk framework and this service does not issue certification.
Does alignment prove AI Act compliance?
No. Legal obligations need a separate system/role analysis and supporting evidence.
Does the assessment evaluate every model?
The proposal names systems, outcomes and review depth.
What if we already have an AI policy?
The policy contributes evidence. We review ownership, context, evaluation and monitoring to see how it operates.
How long does alignment take?
We confirm the delivery schedule in the written proposal after reviewing your scope, evidence and team availability.
Turn AI principles into accountable risk work
Bring your AI inventory, policy and deployment questions. We will discuss the outcomes needing structure and evidence.
Free 30-minute NIST AI risk strategy call. No obligation.
LinkedIn recommendations
Recommendations for Temi
Temi is an incredibly thorough GRC professional with an impressive command of PCI requirements. During our time working together, I was consistently impressed by her ability to navigate complex audit workflows and provide clear, actionable insights. She is a dedicated expert who brings high standards of professionalism to every project.
I’ve had the privilege of working alongside Temi, and I can confidently say she is one of the most reliable and technically proficient GRC and IT Security professionals I have partnered with. Her expertise spans SOX compliance, IT risk management, security controls, and governance frameworks, and she consistently brings clarity, structure, and rigor to every engagement.
Temi has a rare ability to translate complex regulatory requirements into practical, actionable controls that strengthen organizational resilience. Her attention to detail, strong analytical mindset, and commitment to high-quality execution make her an invaluable asset to any team. Beyond her technical strengths, she is collaborative, solutions-oriented, and trusted by stakeholders across the business.
Temi is GRC professional who has exhibited top level IT security risk and audit competence by leading high visibility, high impact projects building frameworks and implementation of systems that have improved the safety and reliability of business operations in global organizations. I have interacted with Temi on tangential projects and I can attest to her professionalism, commitment and leadership.
I had the privilege of being mentored by Temi during my transition from a general tech role into the security field, and I can confidently say her guidance made a significant difference in my journey.
Temi has a rare ability to support and uplift others in whatever capacity she can. She helped me not only understand complex security concepts and frameworks, but also gain practical, real-world exposure to the role. She taught me how to think like a security professional - from communicating security concepts to cross-functional teams with varying levels of understanding, to reviewing and analyzing security documentation for accuracy and completeness.
What stood out most was her genuine investment in my growth. Whether it was recommending resources, connecting me with a trainer to deepen my knowledge, reviewing my learning path, or sharing valuable industry insights, she was always generous with her time and expertise.
If you’re looking for a mentor or security leader who truly empowers others, I highly recommend Temi. I’m incredibly grateful for her support and the lasting impact she has had on my career.
Recommendations as published on LinkedIn, shown with the recommender's name and headline at the time of writing.
03
Scope and fee
Fixed fee confirmed after scoping.
The written proposal confirms the systems, selected outcomes, review depth, deliverables, required participation and delivery schedule. Timing depends on the agreed scope and access to the evidence and people needed for the review.