Creating and implementing an effective risk and resilience management program can be a difficult task. But a successful strategy equips organizations to gain an integrated view of business processes and gather risk intelligence.
When organizations get bogged down in manual risk management processes, there is little time for analysis and objective setting.
Related Reading | Why Manual GRC Processes Don’t Work >
Any successful risk and resiliency strategy will need to be sustainable, equipping teams managing governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) to both anticipate risks and prioritize mitigation once a risk event has occurred.
Technology that can automate GRC processes—increasing efficiency and agility—will reduce costs while improving accuracy in assessing and managing risk.
When organizations have a technology-enabled program that enables more strategic resource allocation, they can then build maturity in their risk and resilience management capabilities.
Navigating an evolving risk landscape requires flexibility in risk management and reporting. With demands for risk intelligence growing across industries, organizations need agility in accessing and analyzing their GRC data.
“Increasing pressure from stakeholders to provide information that enables the organization to prepare for and manage emerging risks is another motivation for enhanced risk management.
External and internal demands — from regulators, boards of directors, and executive leadership teams — for improved risk oversight remain strong, particularly for public companies and financial services firms. 40% of financial institutions report increasing regulator expectations for senior executive involvement in risk oversight.”
Learn more in “The State of ERM.”
Assessing risks and controls is a core component for building resilience to risk and disruption, giving leadership the insights they need to make strategic, risk-based decisions.
“Both qualitative and quantitative assessments have their pros and cons. Most organizations begin with qualitative assessments and develop quantitative as their decision-making needs require. By bringing together a linked view utilizing results from both assessment types, they are achieving levels of complexity and insight not previously attained.
Regardless of how you choose to assess, achieving maximum value requires that your risk assessment methods are commensurate with the risk areas and business lines you are assessing within the organization.”
Learn more in “Maximizing Risk Results.”
Vendors and other third-party service providers contribute significantly to your organization’s risk exposure levels. One report found that more than half of organizations have experienced a data breach caused by a third party. From data security to due diligence, organizations need effective processes for monitoring their third-party ecosystem.
“A check-the-box, bare-minimum management approach leaves teams with disconnected processes that hinder their ability to adapt to a changing third-party risk and compliance landscape.
Preventing this scenario requires a unified, comprehensive TPRM program with clearly defined governance standards. Your organization may have some areas that are managed well at a department level and can be leveraged to mature TPRM processes in other business units. But the next step toward maturity is developing a common governance model for managing third-party risk and breaking down data and process silos.”
Learn more in “Understanding the Third-Party Risk Landscape.”
Corporate policies—when part of a framework that provides access, testing, tracking, and other policy management best practices—are a defense against operational risk. They also help ensure that employees and partners are following established risk management procedures and other organizational processes.
“Establishing effective policy management processes is not a one-time event. Your program needs to be ongoing and regularly reviewed for possible updates to support successful risk and compliance management activities throughout the organization.
The risk and regulatory landscapes are always evolving, and policies need to keep up with the constant pace of change, or they will soon become irrelevant and expose the organization to risk and compliance liabilities.”