Risk Management Framework
Risk Management Framework
2
7 Training & Communication .................................................................................................................... 17
7.1 Training .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
7.2 Communication of responsibilities and Accountabilities .......................................................................................... 17
7.3 Advice and Support ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Appendix 1 –Likelihood Rating: Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................... 18
Appendix 2 – Consequence Rating: evaluation criteria.............................................................. 19
Appendix 3 – Project Risk Assessment Template ........................................................................... 20
Appendix 3 - Project Risk Assessment Template continued ................................................................................................. 21
Risk Quantification ................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Prioritising risks.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Risk Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix 4 – Operational Risk Management Plan Template .................................................... 23
Appendix 5 - Glossary of Risk Management Terms ....................................................................... 24
3
1. Scope & Objectives of the Risk Management Framework
1.1 Scope of the Risk Management Framework
This document outlines the Risk Management Framework for activities within the University and all
its operations and entities. The Framework defines the University’s risk management process,
methodology, appetite, training and reporting, and also establishes the responsibilities for
implementation.
Risk management is part of the University’s day-to-day operations and is undertaken at Group and
Divisional levels as well as more broadly at the overall University level. The overall aim of risk
management within the University is to ensure that organisational capabilities and resources are
employed in an efficient and effective manner to manage both opportunities and threats. To this
end, the University has a Taxonomy of Risk Management, i.e. the Risk Management Framework is
both a top down (University wide) and bottom up approach (including assessments from Groups
and support service Divisions, WHS, major projects, and business continuity). This taxonomy is
illustrated below.
Groups
Others:
• Workplace Health & Safety (WHS)
• Major Projects
• Business Continuity
4
1.2 Objectives of the Risk Management Framework
The objective of this Risk Management Framework is to provide a formal process to assist the
University in:
Encouraging understanding by managers and their staff of the implications of risk exposures,
opportunities and their risk management, in their day-to-day work and in strategic and
operational planning activities;
Developing and implementing procedures to ensure that risks are identified, assessed against
accepted criteria and that appropriate measures are implemented;
Defining and documenting responsibilities and processes.
5
2. Risk Management Framework
Summary of the Griffith University Risk Management Framework
When to do a risk How to assess risks How to treat risks How to report and Monitoring & Assurance
assessment? (analyse & evaluate) communicate
Annual review of corporate Assess inherent risk (without Develop risk mitigation Summary of corporate risks Risk based internal audit plan,
risks by Senior Management controls) by considering both actions included in Risk Management including review of:
<Section 4.1> probability and impact Plan and reviewed by
Establish accountability and
Finance, Resources and Adequacy and
Groups and Support Service Significant projects - using a timeframe effectiveness of key
Divisions risk identification, semi quantitative approach, Risk Committee (FRRC)
Implement risk mitigation controls to manage high
based on specific operational <Appendix 3> and University Council
plans. inherent risks
risks and needs <Appendix <Section 5>
WH&S qualitative approach. Independent review of
5> Develop respective risk Incident reporting to VP (CS)
<Appendix 5> actions
management plans in with significant issues
WH&S - initially for all
Document key controls to Groups and Divisions that
Internal and External
activities which may involve reported to FRRC as part of
Audit plans are risk based
manage risk determine priorities, biannual reporting. <Section
hazards and risk. Re- Post event analysis
Divisions budgeting and 5>
assessment is required if Assess overall control reviews are undertaken in
planning requirements to
there are changes, new work effectiveness Annual reporting (top 10 relation to failures,
address key risks.
processes or new equipment, operational, Group and successes and near
Assess residual risk (after
after an incident or near miss Significant risk and support service Division risks) misses
consideration of controls)
compliance programs may to FRRC <Section 5> Periodic audit of compliance
Significant projects risks (over
Risk decision against include: with Risk Management
$20m in value); during the Quarterly tracking and
project planning phase
appetite <Section 2.3> Environmental Framework
consultation with Groups, and
management system
Annual assessment of support service Divisions on
Disaster recovery and
consolidated issues register Statutory External Audit
business continuity and fraud Business Continuity Plan
risks
Legal Compliance System Compliance breaches and
Fraud malpractices reported
to FRRC
Responsibility
6
2.1 What is risk?
In this Risk Management Framework, risk is defined as an event that may have an impact on the
achievement of the University’s objectives. Risk may arise from external factors (e.g. risks from
global economic crisis, change in student demographics and numbers, changing legislation) or
internal sources (e.g. new projects, new faculty, infrastructure and capacity challenges,
performances, etc.).
Risk registers identify and record the risks facing different areas of business. Identifying risk is a
critical step in managing it. Risk registers allow the University to assess the risk in context with the
overall University strategy, and help record the controls and treatments of those risks. Risk
registers are developed on three tiers, Corporate level, the operational level (Group and Support
Service Divisions), and the project level (Refer Section 4).
7
2.4 Risk management methodology
The Risk Management Process is based upon an internationally accepted standard: ISO 31000:
2009, as shown below
IDENTIFY RISKS
COMMUNICATE & CONSULT
ANALYSE RISKS
ACCEPT
RISKS
TREAT RISKS
The above illustration is detailed within the key steps of the University Risk Management
methodology below:
A Communication
Ongoing communication and consultation with all involved parties to ensure understanding of the
process and its intended outcomes is performed by the Risk Administrator. This involves collating
reports for presentation to the Finance, Resources and Risk Committee and University Council;
facilitating ongoing operational reviews of risk registers, coordinating risk assessments for specific
projects and ongoing advice and support to ensure compliance with the Risk Management
Framework.
B Establish context
Risk management takes place within the goals and objectives of the University. Therefore, risk
management must be placed into both a strategic and operational context.
Strategic Context
Strategic risk identification involves the relationship between the University and the broad external
environment/community. A range of issues should be considered in examining the strategic content,
including:
Opportunities and threats associated with the local, regional, state and global economic, social,
political, cultural, environmental, regulatory and competitive environments;
Key thrusts of stakeholder strategies; and
Strengths and weaknesses of the University in attaining corporate objectives and exercising a
state of influence amongst local and national universities.
Operational Context
Operational risk identification involves gaining an understanding of the organisation’s capabilities,
goals, objectives, strengths and weaknesses by considering:
Organisational structure and culture;
Geographics/demographics;
8
The identity and nature of interaction with key stakeholders;
The existence of any operational constraints;
Objectives and key performance indicators;
Business resilience vulnerabilities;
Relevant issues relating to recent change management risk, performance or audit reviews;
Relevant stakeholder community concerns or requirements;
Regulatory and contractual requirements and constraints; and
Business management systems.
C Risk identification
Risk identification is a critical activity at both a strategic and operational level. It needs to include all
significant sources of risk, including those beyond the University’s control. If a risk/threat is not
identified, there can be no strategy to defend against it. The objective of this step is not to create an
onerous and lengthy list of all possible risks, but to identify all significant risks that could impact
Group or Support Service Divisions. The risk register format is included in Appendix 4.
How does the University identify risks?
Risk can be identified through the use of:
Focus groups (using brainstorming approaches, SWOT analysis techniques, project categories,
or broad business categories);
Workshops;
Interviews with respective management by the Risk Administrator; and
The intranet is also a means of reporting incidents or risks to the Risk Administrator for
consideration.
Enterprise wide risks to the organisation are identified and reviewed annually by Executive Group,
Finance and Resource Committee and University Council. These risks form the basis of the overall
risk profile for the organisation.
The Risk Administrator facilitates ongoing operational reviews to develop Group and Support
Service Division risk registers and action plans. A consistent format is maintained throughout to
facilitate reporting and summarising (separate templates are used for Project risk assessments –
refer Appendix 3).
Categories of Risk
The following broad categories of risk are used to enable appropriate aggregation and to assist with
the identification of systemic issues and trends across the University.
1 Students
2 Financial
3 Operational
4 Information and communication technology
5 Environmental
6 Legal and Regulatory Compliance
7 Organisational effectiveness (resourcing and industrial relations)
8 Workplace Health & Safety
9 Reputation & Corporate Social Responsibility
10 Projects
9
may result in significant damage to the University's reputation and standing which impacts the
attractiveness of the University to students or prejudices future projects or government funding.
As the University-wide risk management program focuses on operational and corporate risks, the
financial loss given to each rating has been determined in the light of what impact would be felt by
the University as a whole. For Group/Division specific risk assessments, the same consequence
and financial loss criteria should be utilised. However, a specific Project consequence criterion has
been established.
Probability or likelihood estimations are established giving due consideration to the effectiveness of
existing control measures. The qualitative terms have been adopted from the Australian Standard.
The likelihood criteria are included in Appendix 1.
The Consequence Rating Evaluation Criteria Chart (included in Appendix 2) defines the
consequence criteria, assessed against potential financial loss, reputation impact, health and safety,
legal and regulatory compliance and management time and effort.
The limits contained in this Consequence Rating Evaluation Criteria are based on the
management’s assessment of the University’s ability to continue operation in the event of a risk
being realised. The setting of the lower limit of $1M as “Insignificant” has been fixed in light of the
test of materiality. The upper limit of $50M is based on management’s assessment of the ability of
the University to support an unexpected loss of this magnitude whilst still remaining solvent. As the
University’s capacity to bear loss changes, the values attributed to these rating will be reviewed.
Inherent risk rating
An inherent risk rating represents the level of risk in the absence of a control environment and is
arrived at after measuring the likelihood and the consequence of an event occurring.
The matrix format ranking has been adopted for the University in which potential risks are ranked
as Extreme, High, Moderate or Low. This is as follows:
Consequences
Likelihood
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Almost
Low Medium High High Extreme
Certain
10
Prioritising risks
The purpose of prioritising the risk is to determine the level of action needed for the identified and
assessed risks.
E Risk treatment
The objective of this step is to identify how the identified risks will be treated. Risk treatment
involves identifying the options for treating each risk, evaluating those options, assigning
accountability (for Extreme, High and Moderate residual risks) and taking relevant action. The
following options are available for treating risks and may be applied individually or in combination,
with due consideration of risk appetite:
11
Not to proceed with the activity or choosing an alternative approach to
Avoid the risk achieve the same outcome.
Aim is risk management, not aversion.
Reduce the likelihood - Improving management controls and procedures.
University Council will oversee risk management within the University, on the advice of the Finance,
Resources and Risk Committee.
The Vice Chancellor will be responsible for the implementation of risk management within the
University, and for responding to and reporting on significant risks that may emerge from time to
time. The implementation of an effective Risk Management Framework is a leadership
responsibility requiring the support of University Council, Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice Chancellors
and Pro Vice Chancellors. University Council and the Vice Chancellor have set out the University’s
expectations in a Risk Management Policy. The Vice Chancellor and Senior Managers provide
support in a number of ways as outlined below.
12
3.3 Deputy and Pro Vice Chancellors
The Deputy Vice Chancellors and Pro Vice Chancellors are responsible for implementing risk
management within their portfolio areas to;
It is not the Risk Administrator’s role to manage risks on behalf of other parties. The appointment
of a Risk Administrator therefore does not remove the responsibility from management and staff to
manage risks and controls for which they are accountable.
13
4. Development of Risk Management Plans
A Risk Management Plan (or register) outlines the foreseeable risks and provides a set of actions
to be taken both to prevent the risk from occurring and reduce the impact of the risk should it
eventuate (template detailed in Appendix 4). More specifically, the plan includes:
List of foreseeable significant risks;
Rating of the Likelihood and Consequence of each risk occurring;
Set of preventative actions to reduce the probability of the risks occurring;
Set of contingent actions to reduce the impact should the risk eventuate; and
Process for managing risks.
14
5 Risk Management Reporting
5.1 Risk Management Reporting Objectives
Documentation of risk management plans is designed to be brief, but with sufficient detail to
provide understanding of the risk, key controls and rationale for mitigation strategies.
Monitoring and reporting against the University’s risk management function is achieved through a
number of complementary processes, illustrated below:
Business Unit and Finance & Resource Committee reporting
Key operational risks are discussed at Group and Divisional management meetings on a quarterly
basis. The Risk Administrator will aggregate and develop a 6 monthly report (top ten (10) significant
risks - detailed template in Appendix 5). More frequent reporting against high level risks occurs as
deemed necessary, including direct reporting by the manager accountable –refer chart overleaf.
The Group/Divisional level risks are collated by the Risk Administrator, and presented annually, to
the Finance, Resources and Risk Committee (illustrated overleaf). This report will include:
Risk register of top 10 corporate risks;
Executive summary of key changes in risk profile and appetite; and
Commentary on significant residual risks (for committee consideration).
15
6 Audit and Assurance
6.1 Internal Audit
Internal Audit is a key component of the University’s assurance framework.
The primary objective of Internal Audit is to provide an assurance framework to underpin the risk
management program. This includes reviews of processes and controls over high risks as
determined through the risk planning process. The internal audit function provides independent
appraisal of the adequacy and effectiveness of internal controls. Recommendations will be
provided, where applicable, for improvements to controls, efficiency and effectiveness of processes.
The internal audit function reports directly to the Audit Committee. Internal Audit also provides an
ongoing cycle of compliance audits of key controls, which is built into the annual audit planning
process as approved by the Audit Committee.
6.3 Compliance
The University has an effective system to ensure the University is aware of and in compliance with
legislative, contractual and policy requirements.
16
7 Training & Communication
The University has clarified roles, responsibilities accountabilities and authorities at all levels of the
University. The University Risk Management Framework is embedded in operations through a
number of communication, training and support systems, including:
7.1 Training
To ensure that adequate risk management competency levels are achieved and maintained, the
University provides regular training courses in the risk management process and its application in
the University.
Specific risk management training sessions will be held on an annual basis, aimed at providing an
overview of the Risk Management Framework. The training will be facilitated by the Risk
Administrator. Additional ad-hoc training will be provided as required.
Instruments providing training on appropriate controls include job descriptions, inductions, policies,
procedures, terms of reference, charters, performance planning and review programs, contracts
and delegations.
Risk management responsibilities, accountabilities and authorities are set out in:
The Risk Management Policy;
Positions descriptions;
Delegations
the University’s intranet;
Project documentation;
Performance planning and review documentation; and
Risk registers.
17
Appendix 1 –Likelihood Rating: Evaluation Criteria
You will determine how likely it is that Griffith will be exposed to each specific risk after taking into account current internal controls and considering factors such as:
1 Anticipated frequency of occurrence;
2 The external environment (e.g. regulatory, economic, competition, community expectations and market issues);
3 The procedures, tools and skills currently in place; and
4 History of previous events – both Griffith and other providers.
Likelihood rating
The number of times within a specified period in which a risk may occur either as a consequence of business operations or through failure of operating systems,
policies or procedures.
Almost Certain Expected to occur in most circumstances Multiple / 12 months > 80%
Possible Might occur within a 5 year time period Once / 12 months – 5 years 41 – 60%
Unlikely Could occur during a specified time period Once / 5 – 10 years 21 – 40%
Rare May only occur in exceptional circumstances Once / > 10 years < 20%
18
Appendix 2 – Consequence Rating: evaluation criteria
Business risks are assessed in terms of the consequence of their impact on strategic objectives. Indirect financial consequences such as reputation and management effort
are key considerations. In addition financial impacts are also considered. The following table is used to guide the assessment of impact of each identified risk.
Consequence Category
Factor of Consequences /
categories of risk
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Compliance with Oversight on reporting activity that Minimal non-compliance to relevant Non-compliance with legislation affecting Non-compliance with legislation affecting Non-compliance with legislation affecting
is under control. No penalty or legislation, within Group or Divisions. other Group or Divisions. Possible closure Group or Divisions activities. Closure of closure of core Group or Divisions operations
Legislation. imprisonment. Breaches by an individual staff member. of a course or Research Centre, penalty several non-core operations. High possibility or key business activities and/or large penalty
Penalty may be incurred. and/or imprisonment. for individual/corporate penalty and/or (individual/corporate) and/or imprisonment.
Corporate, Group or Support Service
imprisonment.
Damage to Reputation. Minimal adverse publicity in local Adverse publicity in local/state press. Extended negative local/state, plus national Longer-term nation wide and international Extended negative national and international
press. Letters received and printed Letters to the Editors, with follow up media coverage. Requirement to manage coverage. Need to increase focus on wide coverage. Requirement to implement a
but no further action taken. comments from the readership or key stakeholders. management of a broader group of communication plan for all stakeholders.
interested parties. stakeholders.
Disruption to Established No interruption to service. Some disruption manageable by altered Disruption to a number of operational Several key operational areas closed. Disruption to services causing campus closure
Inconvenience to localised operational routine. Reduction in areas/campus. Closure of an operational Disruption to teaching / course schedules or or key business closure for more than one
Routines and operations. operations. operational routine. area/campus for up to one day. key business activities for up to one week. week.
Financial. Less than $1M $1M to $5M. $5M to $20M. $20M to $50M. Greater than $50M.
Division Activity
General Environmental & No lasting detrimental effect on the Short term, detrimental effect on the Serious, discharge of pollutant or source of Long term detrimental environmental or social Extensive detrimental long term impacts on the
environment environment or social impact, community annoyance within general impact i.e., chronic &/or significant discharge environment and community i.e., catastrophic
Social Impacts. i.e., harm, nuisance, noise, fumes, E.g. Minor discharge of pollutants within neighbourhood that requires remedial of pollutant. &/or extensive discharge of persistent
odour or dust emissions of short- local neighbourhood. action. hazardous pollutant.
term duration.
WHS Incident – no lost time. No injury. Injury – no lost time. First aid required. Injury – lost time compensable injury. Fatality or serious injury/stress resulting in Multiple fatalities (not natural causes).
Medical treatment required. hospitalisation.
Management Time and Event absorbed by normal activity. Management effort required to minimise A significant event managed through A critical event, which with proper Executive Management focus away from day to
the impact. normal practices. management can be endured. day key functions for extended periods.
Effort
Project Budget # <1% of project budget 1 to 5% of project budget 5 to 10% of project budget 10 to 25% of project budget >25% of project budget
Project
Program delays Little or no delay Short delay Significant delay Major delay Project halted major delay
Major
Duration increased >2% Duration increased >10% Duration increased >25% Duration increased >50%
Relationship - Managing Either party is irritated but no formal Resolved at working level Resolved at senior management level Departmental Head intervention Legal recourse initiated.
complaints
Contractor
#The consequence category for “Project Budget” may differ according to the overall value of the project itself. Likewise, the criteria for “Program Delays” may also vary depending on the specific Project deadlines.
19
Appendix 3 – Project Risk Assessment Template
Project Title Period: March 2010
Project Description / Scope / Please describe the key aspects of the project to clarify the nature , background and scope of the project
Background
Risk Category Select the risk category Requirements Benefits Schedule Budget Deliverables Scope
being considered
Issues Suppliers Acceptance Communication Resource Other
Project Risks / Issues - Budget Consequence: Likelihood: Consequence Likelihood Rating:
Consider a workshop during the “Risk Quantitative and qualitative List the issues that would affect the Rating:
E.g. Medium -Using
Planning” stage, involving each of the List all the potential consequences of likelihood of the risk eventuating
E.g. High -Using the the scoring system
key project stakeholders (project each risk
sponsor, manager, team, suppliers, scoring system below, what is the
customer), to identify risks List the consequences in $ terms, to below, what is the probability of the risk
enable better judgement in the decision potential impact of the eventuating
List the likely risks, which may affect making process. E.g. The project
the project, consider each risk risk
exceeds the allocated budget by $500k
category Score: Score:
40 60
Current Controls (these are controls in place) Future Mitigating Actions Responsibility Action Date
List all controls in place that would limit our exposure to the risk occurring (i.e. List all Preventative actions (reduce possibility List responsible List due date for
reduce the likelihood of the risk occurring and reduce the potential consequence of risk occurring) and Contingent (reduce the persons for each each action
of the risk) impact) including estimated completion dates action
How are these controls enforced (Who, when, how evidenced?) and accountability for each action.
Priority Risk Rating - Priority equals average of Likelihood and Consequence scores. After considering the above controls - in place 50 (ave of above) Moderate
only )
Matters for consideration List any other matters for consideration that are relevant to the decision as to whether the University should accept the risk
Issues for insurers For Risk Administrator to complete
Risk decision Accept, Mitigate, Transfer or Avoid
Prepared and recommended by: xxx Reviewed and endorsed by: Xxx
Date Date
Approved PVC Administration Date
20
Appendix 3 - Project Risk Assessment Template continued
Risk Quantification
Table of Probability (Project Risks only)
Rating Score Description
Almost Certain 100 Highly likely to occur as the circumstances which will cause the risk to eventuate are also very likely to be created
Possible 60 Likely to occur, as it is clear that the risk will probably eventuate
Unlikely 40 Unlikely to occur, based on current information, as the circumstances likely to trigger the risk are also unlikely to occur
Highly unlikely to occur; however, still needs to be monitored as certain circumstances could result in this risk
Rare 20
becoming more likely to occur during the project
Table of Consequence (Project Risks only)
Rating Score Description
Catastrophic 100 Major impact on the project, e.g. >25% deviation in scope, scheduled end-date or project budget.
Major 80 Significant impact on the project, e.g. 10-25% deviation in scope, scheduled end-date or project budget.
Moderate 60 Measurable impact on the project, e.g. 5-10% deviation in scope, scheduled end-date or project budget.
Minor 40 Minor impact on the project, e.g. <5% deviation in scope, scheduled end-date or project budget.
Insignificant 20 Insignificant impact on the project, It is not possible to measure the impact on the project as it is minimal
.
21
Prioritising risks
The purpose of prioritising the risk is to determine the level of action needed for the identified and assessed risks. Establish the priority of each project risk by identifying the
probability of the risk eventuating and its impact on the project. The priority score is calculated as follows:
Medium 41-60 Management by specific reviewing and monitoring of procedures (Managers) Assign accountability
Manage by routine procedures, unlikely to need specific application of resources (managers and
Low 0-40 Business as usual
key staff)
Risk Plan
The risk plan includes a set of actions to be taken to avoid, transfer or mitigate each risk, based on the priority of the risk assigned.
For each risk identified and in order of priority, list:
Preventative actions – reduce the likelihood of the risk occurring.
Contingent actions – reduce the consequence should the risk eventuate.
22
Appendix 4 – Operational Risk Management Plan Template
Example only – not based on actual risks
23
Appendix 5 - Glossary of Risk Management Terms
Consequence
The outcome of an event expressed qualitatively or quantitatively, being a loss, injury,
disadvantage or gain. There may be a range of possible outcomes associated with an event.
Control
Any action taken by management, the board, and other parties to manage risk and increase the
likelihood that established objectives and goals will be achieved.
Cost
Of activities, both direct and indirect, involving any negative impact, including money, time, labour,
disruption, and goodwill, political and intangible losses.
Contingency
Budget (cost benefit) or time (duration) that may be used in the event of a risk occurrence.
Event
An incident or situation, which occurs in a particular place during a particular interval of time.
Frequency
A measure of the rate of occurrence of an event expressed as the number of occurrences of their
event in a given time. See also Likelihood and Probability.
Hazard
A source of potential harm or a situation with a potential to cause loss.
Inherent limitations
Those limitations of all enterprise Risk Management Frameworks. The limitations relate to the
limits of human judgment; resource constraints and the need to consider the cost of controls in
relation to expected benefits; the reality that breakdowns can occur; and the possibility of
management override and collusion.
Inherent risk
High inherent risks that are well controlled may fall out of our field of view if only the residual risk is
assessed. The purpose of assessing inherent risk is to ensure that we maintain focus on
compliance with controls.
The inherent risk should be considered in the absence of the University added controls.
Likelihood
Used as a qualitative description of probability or frequency of a risk occurring.
Loss
Any negative consequence, financial or otherwise. Can be differentiated as follows;
Maximum foreseeable loss- highest possible loss after considering controls
Maximum possible loss – highest possible loss without considering controls
Monitor
To check, supervise, observe critically, or record the progress of an activity, action or system on a
regular basis in order to identify change.
Probability
The likelihood of a specific event or outcome, measured by the ratio of specific events or outcomes
to the total number of possible events or outcomes.
Reasonable assurance
The concept that enterprise risk management, no matter how well designed and operated, cannot
guarantee that an entity’s objectives will be met. This is because of inherent limitations in all Risk
Management Frameworks.
Residual risk
The remaining risk after management has taken action to alter the risk’s likelihood or consequence.
Risk
The possibility of an event occurring that will have an impact on the achievement of objectives.
Risk is measured in terms of consequence and likelihood.
Risk acceptance
An informed decision to accept the consequences and the likelihood of a particular risk.
Risk acceptance criteria
Management’s formal establishment of criteria or boundaries designed so that the residual risk
does not exceed the selected range of financial and operating outcomes.
Risk analysis
24
A systematic use of available information to determine how often specified events may occur and
the magnitude of their consequences.
Risk appetite
The level of risk that is acceptable to the board or management. This may be set for the
organisation as a whole, for different groups of risks or at an individual risk level.
Risk assessment
The overall process of risk analysis and risk evaluation.
Risk avoidance
An informed decision not to become involved in a risk situation.
Risk evaluation
The process used to determine risk management priorities by comparing the level of risk against
predetermined standards, target risk levels or other criteria.
Risk identification
The process of determining what can happen, why and how.
Risk Management Framework
The totality of the structures, methodology, procedures and definitions that an organisation has
chosen to use to implement its Risk Management Processes.
Risk Management Processes
Processes to identify, assess, manage, and control potential events or situations, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of the organisation’s objectives.
Risk Plan / Register
The means by which an organisation elects to manage or treat the individual risks. The main
categories are to accept the risk; to mitigate it by reducing its consequence or likelihood; to transfer
it to another organisation or to avoid the activity creating it.
Risk Register / Risk Management Plan
The summary report of all individual risks within each assessment, which include; risk ratings
(inherent, residual and targeted), level of control, risk decision, risk owner and summary of key
controls and/or mitigating actions.
Stakeholders
Those people and organisations who may affect, be affected by, or perceive themselves to be
affected by, a decision or activity.
25