PortfolioC3-4

AI Investment Strategy and Portfolio Governance

Vendor Selection and Concentration Risk Monitor

SIMULATEDVerified Jul 2, 2026

A vendor scorecard can identify the best fit, but it does not tell the full story. This artifact pairs weighted selection criteria with concentration, renewal timing, and exit cost exposure.

Same instrument · three industries pick a use case to reconfigure the run

Prefer to read? The two minute case study · problem → approach → metric → outcome

Problem

The best scoring vendor may also introduce lock in, concentration, or renewal exposure. Executive decisions need both views: which vendor fits the need and what it costs if the relationship, roadmap, or pricing changes.

Approach

The monitor compares vendor archetypes across capability, security, roadmap, lock in, support, and price. It then adds a risk view that shows concentration, renewal exposure, and estimated exit cost.

Why this way

This connects AI sourcing to procurement, third party risk, resiliency, cost exposure, roadmap dependency, and negotiating leverage.

The metric

Weighted vendor score; switching/exit cost exposure if the relationship sours.

The trade-off

The best fit vendor may also be the biggest concentration risk.

Outcome

A vendor pick with the exit cost exposure named up front.

Weights

25%
20%
15%
15%
10%
15%
#1

Open-source-backed

Top pick
78

Portable, cheaper, thinner support.

#2

Specialist

77

Best in class capability, narrower surface.

#3

Hyperscaler

75

Broad platform, deep integration, real lock in.

Top pick: Open-source-backed, exit cost $90k

Nudge two or three weights and the ranking can flip, a “winner” that survives only one weighting isn't a decision, it's a preference. Pair the pick with its concentration and exit cost before you sign.

If you act on this · the call → expected lift → how you'd measure it

The call

Choose the vendor with both fit and exit exposure visible.

Expected lift · illustrative

Reduces hidden concentration risk by treating vendor choice as an operating dependency, not just a feature comparison.

How you'd measure it

Weighted score, concentration exposure, exit cost, renewal timing, switching feasibility.

Steering committee takeaway: The scorecard tells you who wins. The risk view tells you what it costs if the winner becomes wrong.

How this is built

Weighted score = Σ(weight × criterion score) ÷ Σ(weights), so weights are relative and always normalize to 100%. Lock in and price are scored so higher = better (less lock in, better value).

Risk view pairs each vendor with concentration (spend share if primary), renewal window, and exit cost (tracks lock in). Stack: Next.js (static) + shared design system; client side.

Limitations: this is a simplified vendor model. Real vendor selection would require procurement terms, security review, architecture fit, legal review, financial analysis, and operational due diligence.