AI Risk Management

AI Risk Management Framework

A structured approach to identifying, assessing, mitigating, and monitoring AI risks, adapted from the NIST AI Risk Management Framework for the unique context of higher education, as defined in our AI Development Policy.

NIST AI RMF 1.0 aligned
GOVERN · MAP · MEASURE · MANAGE
Higher education context
Trustworthy AI

Seven characteristics of trustworthy AI

Following the NIST framework, Infinize defines trustworthy AI through seven characteristics that must be balanced across all AI systems.

Valid & Reliable

Accurate, consistent outputs across diverse institutions and student populations.

Safe

No conditions that endanger student welfare, outcomes, or institutional integrity.

Secure & Resilient

Confidentiality, integrity, and availability maintained under adverse conditions.

Transparent

Operations and outputs available to stakeholders with clear accountability chains.

Explainable

Mechanisms and outputs understood by advisors, faculty, and administrators.

Privacy-Enhanced

Student autonomy, identity, and data safeguarded with full FERPA compliance.

Fair

Equity promoted across demographic groups; harmful bias actively managed and mitigated.

Risk Classification

Four-tier risk classification

Every AI system is classified based on potential impact, drawing on NIST AI RMF guidance and the risk categories defined in our AI Development Policy.

Unacceptable

Prohibited

Subliminal manipulation, social scoring, real-time biometric identification. Must never be developed or deployed.

High Risk

Full Governance

Predictive retention models, enrollment predictions, transfer evaluation, career recommendations. RASC approval and full TEVV required.

Limited Risk

Standard Review

Course assistant, skills assessment, resume builder, dashboard analytics. RAWG review with standard TEVV and transparency notices.

Minimal Risk

Self-Assessment

Internal analytics, non-student-facing tools, data pipeline automation. Self-assessment by product team, registered in inventory.

Framing AI Risk

Understanding AI risks in higher education

AI systems in higher education present unique risks that require careful management beyond traditional software risk frameworks.

Student Data Privacy

FERPA compliance across complex data flows involving student records, predictive models, and AI-generated recommendations

Equity & Fairness

Ensuring predictive models and recommendations do not perpetuate or amplify existing inequities across student demographics

Over-Reliance

Potential for automation bias among advisors and faculty who may defer to AI outputs without critical evaluation

Student Autonomy

Risk that AI nudges, alerts, or recommendations could unduly influence or constrain student agency and decision-making

GenAI Content Safety

Hallucination risks, inappropriate content generation, and prompt injection vulnerabilities in the Universal Assistant

Core Functions

Four NIST AI RMF functions

Not sequential steps but iterative, interconnected activities that span the entire AI lifecycle, adapted for the higher education context.

GOV
GOVERN

Culture & Policy

Cultivate a culture of AI risk management with policies, accountability structures, and organizational processes.

  • Responsible AI Steering Committee (executive oversight)
  • Cross-functional Working Group (operational risk assessment)
  • Integration into product development lifecycle
  • Ongoing institutional partner engagement
MAP
MAP

Context & Framing

Establish context for framing risks, intended purposes, potential impacts, stakeholder expectations, and institutional deployment settings.

  • Document intended purposes and applicable laws
  • Engage interdisciplinary teams with domain expertise
  • Define organizational risk tolerances per institution
  • Map third-party risks from LLM providers and integrations
MEA
MEASURE

Analyze & Monitor

Employ quantitative and qualitative tools to analyze, assess, benchmark, and monitor AI risk and related impacts over time.

  • Track bias and fairness across diverse student populations
  • Validate accuracy in different institutional contexts
  • Monitor Universal Assistant for safety and appropriateness
  • Assess whether features achieve educational outcomes
MAN
MANAGE

Respond & Treat

Allocate risk resources, develop treatment plans, implement incident response procedures, and maintain communication protocols.

  • Prioritize risks based on student outcome impact
  • Develop response plans for high-priority risks
  • Maintain mechanisms to deactivate problematic systems
  • Communicate incidents to institutional partners
System Risk Profiles

AI system risk profiles

Specific risk profiles for each of Infinize's primary AI system categories, documenting risks, trustworthiness priorities, and key controls.

Predictive Analytics

Retention Risk · Enrollment Likelihood

Risks include bias in predictions across demographics, over-reliance by advisors, accuracy degradation, and privacy concerns with data aggregation.

FairnessValidityExplainabilityPrivacy

Recommender Systems

Major · Career · Course Recommendations

Risks include reinforcing existing inequities in pathways, limiting student autonomy through narrow options, and insufficient diversity in outputs.

FairnessAutonomyExplainabilityValidity

Universal Assistant

Generative AI Chatbot

Risks include generating inaccurate or harmful content, facilitating non-educational uses, exposing sensitive data, and providing inappropriate advice.

SafetyPrivacyAccountabilityReliability

Alerts & Nudges

Intelligent Alerting System

Risks include alert fatigue, false positives creating anxiety, disproportionate alerting across groups, and undermining student autonomy.

ReliabilityFairnessAutonomyTransparency

Transfer Evaluation

Automated Credit Assessment

Risks include inaccurate credit equivalencies, bias against certain institution types, and lack of transparency in evaluation criteria.

ReliabilityFairnessExplainabilityAccountability
Implementation Roadmap

Phased implementation

A structured roadmap for operationalizing the AI risk management framework across the organization.

Phase 1: Foundation

Months 1–3

Establish Responsible AI Steering Committee and Working Group. Conduct initial AI system inventory and risk categorization. Document risk tolerances and organizational policies. Begin GOVERN function implementation.

Phase 2: Assessment

Months 4–6

Complete MAP function for all deployed AI systems. Develop risk-specific measurement metrics and tools. Conduct initial bias and fairness audits across all predictive models. Establish third-party risk monitoring for LLM providers.

Phase 3: Operationalization

Months 7–12

Fully implement MEASURE and MANAGE functions. Deploy continuous monitoring and alerting for AI system performance. Integrate risk management into product development sprints. Publish transparency reports for institutional partners.

Phase 4: Maturation

Ongoing

Conduct periodic framework reviews and updates. Expand stakeholder engagement programs. Contribute to industry standards for AI in higher education. Develop institution-specific risk profiles for all partner institutions.

Want a deep dive into our risk framework?

Our team can walk you through every dimension of how we identify, assess, and manage AI risks in education.