There are many ways to conduct a risk assessment. For example, companies may conduct interviews or surveys of key personnel, review key documents, conduct facilitated workshops, perform targeted reviews, or utilize any combination of these options. The following table discusses options to conduct an effective risk assessment.
| Interviews | Online Surveys | Paper Surveys | Document Review | Facilitated Workshops | Targeted Reviews | |
| Description | Individual stakeholder interviews to identify potential events and prioritize associated risk | Online survey consisting of either a checklist of events or risks OR an open-ended request | Hard copy survey consisting of either a checklist of events or risks OR an open-ended request | Review of existing public documents, regulatory reviews, audit reports, special purpose studies and other materials | An in-person or online workshop attended by key stakeholders | Special studies or targeted analyses to evaluate questions about specific events or anticipated concerns |
| Advantages | Interaction provides opportunity to:
“Set the stage” Ask the appropriate follow-up questions Probe/ understand underlying root causes Clarify questions, if necessary Cover sensitive topics more thoroughly More insight and depth regarding potential future events |
Can be accessed by participants without the limitations of time or geography
Can support the process with links to risk definitions and additional resources Can be delivered efficiently at low cost (relative to interviews) Can be administered to large groups of people Self-documenting and reporting Efficient, easy to administer to large numbers and geographies Standardized scales can lead to common aggregation Can track status |
Can be completed by participant without limitations of time or geography
Can be delivered efficiently at low cost although not as cost-effective as online Can be administered to large numbers of people Standardized scales can lead to common aggregation |
Comprehensive in scope
Fact-based May provide basis for quantifying risk Less time required of stakeholders during fact gathering process Not limited to internal documents |
Interaction among knowledgeable participants creates a broad picture of potential events and related business impact
Interaction stimulates discovery of previously unidentified risk areas, which can remain undetected in other formats Structure provides for efficient use of time Collaboration builds consensus around priority risks and their impacts Similar to interviews, interaction provides opportunity to: “Set the stage” Ask the appropriate follow-up questions Probe/ understand underlying root causes Clarify questions, if necessary Cover sensitive topics more thoroughly More insight and depth regarding potential future events |
Same advantages noted for document reviews
Conducted by subject matter experts Accommodates in-depth understanding of specific potential events and related business impacts May be applied on a macro or micro basis Can integrate external/ internal perspectives Can provide recommended risk responses |
| Issues | Time sensitive
Scheduling challenges Logistics must be managed Interviewer must subjectively aggregate data points Individual interviews do not directly support consensus-building |
Limited follow-up
Post-survey time is required to review and understand responses Risk of misinterpreting responses Depth of responses may be limited Individual responses do not gain from the perspective of others |
Same issues noted for online surveys
Not considered “best practice” Greater elapsed time to send and receive Compared to online surveys, more time and effort to: -Support -Process -Monitor progress -Compile results |
Higher cost to review and analyze existing material
Often not forward-looking May not reflect current business realities If unfocused, can waste time and money |
Effectiveness is dependent of facilitator and sufficient structure
Requires advance planning Logistically challenging to arrange participant’s time and location Can be time-consuming due to numbers of people and need to clarify event definitions |
Expectations must be clearly set
Must be carefully scoped Often requires more time than other options |
Discussion
No comments yet.