STANDARD · Click here to purchase the full version from the ANSI store. ANSI/ASIS/RIMS RA.1-2015. an American National Standard. ... leadership through the CSO Roundtable for the

Risk Assessment

A S I S I N T E R N A T I O N A L

ANSI/ASIS/RIMS RA.1-2015

S TA N DA R DThe worldwide leader in security standards and guidelines development

1625 Prince StreetAlexandria, Virginia 22314-2818

USA+1.703.519.6200

Fax: +1.703.519.6299www.asisonline.org

Su

pp

ly C

hain

Risk

Man

ag

em

en

t: A C

om

pila

tion

of B

est P

ractic

es

AN

SI/A

SIS

SC

RM

.1-20

14S

T A

N D

A R

D

Standard_SCRM_Cover_wSPINE.indd 1 5/5/2014 10:09:19 AM

Supply Chain Risk Management: A Compilation of Best Practices


ANSI/ASIS SCRM.1-2014



USA+1.703.519.6200


Su

pp

ly C

hain

Risk

Man

ag

em

en

t: A C

om

pila

tion

of B

est P

ractic

es

AN

SI/A

SIS

SC

RM

.1-20

14S

T A

N D

A R

D


Supply Chain Risk Management: A Compilation of Best Practices


ANSI/ASIS SCRM.1-2014



USA+1.703.519.6200


Su

pp

ly C

hain

Risk

Man

ag

em

en

t: A C

om

pila

tion

of B

est P

ractic

es

AN

SI/A

SIS

SC

RM

.1-20

14S

T A

N D

A R

D


This is a preview of "ANSI/ASIS/RIMS RA.1-...". Click here to purchase the full version from the ANSI store.

https://webstore.ansi.org/Standards/ASIS/ANSIASISRIMSRA2015?source=preview


an American National Standard

RISK ASSESSMENT

Approved August 3, 2015

American National Standards Institute, Inc.

ASIS International and The Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc.

Abstract

This Standard provides guidance on developing and sustaining a coherent and effective risk assessment program including

principles, managing an overall risk assessment program, and performing individual risk assessments, along with confirming

the competencies of risk assessors and understanding biases. This Standard describes a well-defined risk assessment program

and individual assessments to provide the foundation for the risk management process. Seven annexes provide additional

guidance for applying risk assessments and potential treatments.




ii

NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

The information in this publication was considered technically sound by the consensus of those who engaged in the

development and approval of the document at the time of its creation. Consensus does not necessarily mean that there is

unanimous agreement among the participants in the development of this document.

ASIS and RIMS standards and guideline publications, of which the document contained herein is one, are developed through a

voluntary consensus standards development process. This process brings together volunteers and/or seeks out the views of

persons who have an interest and knowledge in the topic covered by this publication. While ASIS administers the process and

establishes rules to promote fairness in the development of consensus, it does not write the document and it does not

independently test, evaluate, or verify the accuracy or completeness of any information or the soundness of any judgments

contained in its standards and guideline publications.

ASIS is a volunteer, nonprofit professional society with no regulatory, licensing or enforcement power over its members or

anyone else. ASIS and RIMS do not accept or undertake a duty to any third party because they do not have the authority to

enforce compliance with their standards or guidelines. They assume no duty of care to the general public, because their works

are not obligatory and because they do not monitor the use of them.

ASIS and RIMS disclaim liability for any personal injury, property, or other damages of any nature whatsoever, whether special,

indirect, consequential, or compensatory, directly or indirectly resulting from the publication, use of, application, or reliance on

this document. ASIS and RIMS disclaim and make no guaranty or warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy or

completeness of any information published herein, and disclaims and makes no warranty that the information in this document

will fulfill any person’s or entity’s particular purposes or needs. ASIS and RIMS do not undertake to guarantee the performance

of any individual manufacturer or seller’s products or services by virtue of this standard or guide.

In publishing and making this document available, ASIS and RIMS are not undertaking to render professional or other services

for or on behalf of any person or entity, nor are ASIS and RIMS undertaking to perform any duty owed by any person or entity

to someone else. Anyone using this document should rely on his or her own independent judgment or, as appropriate, seek the

advice of a competent professional in determining the exercise of reasonable care in any given circumstances. Information and

other standards on the topic covered by this publication may be available from other sources, which the user may wish to consult

for additional views or information not covered by this publication.

ASIS and RIMS have no power, nor do they undertake to police or enforce compliance with the contents of this document. ASIS

and RIMS have no control over which of their standards, if any, may be adopted by governmental regulatory agencies, or over

any activity or conduct that purports to conform to their standards. ASIS and RIMS do not list, certify, test, inspect, or approve

any practices, products, materials, designs, or installations for compliance with its standards. They merely publish standards

to be used as guidelines that third parties may or may not choose to adopt, modify, or reject. Any certification or other statement

of compliance with any information in this document should not be attributable to ASIS and RIMS and is solely the responsibility

of the certifier or maker of the statement.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or

by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the copyright

owner.

Copyright © 2015 ASIS International and The Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-1-934904-75-6




iii

FOREWORD

The information contained in this Foreword is not part of this American National Standard (ANS) and has not been processed

in accordance with ANSI’s requirements for an ANS. As such, this Foreword may contain material that has not been subjected

to public review or a consensus process. In addition, it does not contain requirements necessary for conformance to the Standard.

ANSI guidelines specify two categories of requirements: mandatory and recommendation. The mandatory requirements are

designated by the word shall and recommendations by the word should. Where both a mandatory requirement and a

recommendation are specified for the same criterion, the recommendation represents a goal currently identifiable as having

distinct compatibility or performance advantages.

ASIS International and The Risk Management Society, Inc. collaborated in the development of this Risk Assessment standard.

About ASIS ASIS International (ASIS) is the largest membership organization for security management professionals that crosses industry

sectors, embracing every discipline along the security spectrum from operational to cybersecurity. Founded in 1955, ASIS is

dedicated to increasing the effectiveness of security professionals at all levels.

With membership and chapters around the globe, ASIS develops and delivers board certifications and industry standards, hosts

networking opportunities, publishes the award-winning Security Management magazine, and offers educational programs,

including the Annual Seminar and Exhibits—the security industry’s most influential event. Whether providing thought

leadership through the CSO Roundtable for the industry’s most senior executives or advocating before business, government,

or the media, ASIS is focused on advancing the profession, and ensuring that the security community has access to intelligence,

resources, and technology needed within the business enterprise. www.asisonline.org

The work of preparing standards and guidelines is carried out through the ASIS International Standards and Guidelines

Committees, and governed by the ASIS Commission on Standards and Guidelines. An ANSI accredited Standards Development

Organization (SDO), ASIS actively participates in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The mission of the

ASIS Standards and Guidelines Commission is to advance the practice of security management through the development of standards

and guidelines within a voluntary, nonproprietary, and consensus-based process, utilizing to the fullest extent possible the knowledge,

experience, and expertise of ASIS membership, security professionals, and the global security industry.

About RIMS As the preeminent organization dedicated to advancing the practice of risk management, RIMS, the risk management society™,

is a global not-for-profit organization representing more than 3,500 industrial, service, nonprofit, charitable and government

entities throughout the world. Founded in 1950, RIMS brings networking, professional development and education

opportunities to its membership of more than 11,000 risk management professionals who are located in more than 60 countries.

Suggestions for improvement of this document are welcome. They should be sent to ASIS International, 1625 Prince Street,

Alexandria, VA 22314-2818.

Commission Members Charles Baley, Farmers Insurance Group, Inc.

Michael Bouchard, Sterling Global Operations, Inc.

Cynthia P. Conlon, CPP, Conlon Consulting Corporation

William Daly, Control Risks Security Consulting

Lisa DuBrock, Radian Compliance LLC

Eugene Ferraro, CPP, CFE, PCI, SPHR, Convercent, Inc.

F. Mark Geraci, CPP, Purdue Pharma L.P., Chair




iv

Bernard Greenawalt, CPP, Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

Robert Jones, Socrates Ltd

Glen Kitteringham, CPP, Kitteringham Security Group Inc.

Michael Knoke, CPP, Express Scripts, Inc., Vice Chair

Bryan Leadbetter, CPP, Alcoa Inc.

Marc Siegel, Ph.D., Commissioner, ASIS Global Standards Initiative

Jose Miguel Sobron, United Nations

Roger Warwick, CPP, Pyramid International Temi Group

Allison Wylde, Consultant

At the time it approved this document, RA, which is responsible for the development of this Standard, had the following

members:

Committee Members

Committee Co-Chair: Carol Fox, ARM, Director of Strategic and Enterprise Practice, RIMS

Committee Co-Chair: Marc Siegel, Ph.D., Commissioner, ASIS Global Standards Initiative

Commission Liaison: Glen Kitteringham, CPP, Kitteringham Security Group Inc.

Committee Secretariat: Sue Carioti, ASIS Secretariat

Kaleem Ahmed, Independent

Sean Ahrens, M.A., CPP, BSCP, CSC, Aon Corporation

Ian Alderson, CPP, Independent

Christopher Aldous, Dip SP&C (Open), CPP, PSP, Design Security Ltd

Lyle Alexander, CPP, A.R.M Specialists Ltd

Rex Alexander, HeliExperts International LLC

Kanch Algama, DynCorp International, LLC

Frank Amoyaw, LandMark Security Limited

Edgard Ansola, CISA, CISSP, CEH, CCNA, Asepeyo MATEPSS nº151

Gina Arbeau, Cadillac Fairview Ltd.

Julie Ashley, The MITRE Corporation

Paul Aube, CPP, Dessau

Don Aviv, CPP, PSP, PCI, Interfor Inc.

Pradeep Bajaj, Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited

Mark Baker, CPP, Macatoma Security Inc.

Guillaume Banville, PSP, Bell Canada

Serge Barbeau, CPP, Chartand-Barbeau

Shayne Bates, CPP, LMC Consulting Group

Mark Beaudry, CPP, Independent

Jay Beighley, CPP, CFE, Nationwide Insurance

Dan Belai, CPP, PSP, Independent

Frank Bellomo, Business Risks International

Ray Bernard, PSP, RBCS, Inc.




v

William Besse, Andrews International LLC

John Biddy, CPP, Independent

Robert Birdsall, CPP, Independent

Ingeborg (Inge) Black, CPP, CFE, CPOI, Appollo International

Dennis Blass, CPP, PSP, CISSP, CFE, Children’s of Alabama

John Boal, CPP, PCI, Independent

Michael Bouchard, Security Dynamics Group LLC

Gertrude Branch, American National Red Cross

Patrick Brennan, Crivello Carlson

Mitchell Brockbank, CISSP, CISA, Independent

John Brown, CPP, Thomson Reuters

Michael Brzozowski, PSP, CPP, Symcor

Dirk Buerhaus, KOETTER GmbH & Co. KG Security

David Bunch, CPP, Independent

Donald Byrne, CBCP, CDCP, Independent

James Calder, Ph.D, CPP, Independent

Herbert Calderon, CPP, PSP, CFE, Talisman Energy

John Casas, PSP, John Casas & Associates LLC

Laurie Champion, CPCU, Aon Corporation

Chee-Seng Chan, CBCP, Spot Management Services Pte., Ltd.

Antony Chattin, IRCA 9001 Lead Auditor, Maritime Security Solutions Global Ltd.

Albert Concordia, CPP, ACE Group Insurance

Bill Cooper, Northwest University

Amaury Cooper, International Relief & Development (IRD)

Jose Correa, CPP, PSP, Independent

Georges Cowan, Business Continu-IT Partners

Geoffrey Craighead, CPP, Universal Protection Service

Michael Crocker, CPP and CSC, Michael Crocker, CPP & Assoc., Inc.

Kenneth Crowther, The MITRE Corporation

Dana Curtiss, Cook County Department of Homeland Security & Emergency Management

Ali Dalipi, Villanova University

Allan Davis, Sizemore Inc.

Frank Davis, CPP, MSc. Trident Manor

Eric Davoine, Independent

Robert Day, CPP, PCI, CSP, CRSP, CHRP, CPMSIA, Office of Regulatory Change Management

Debra Decker, Independent

Donald Decker, CPP, CPM, Robson Forensic, Inc.

Sean Denson, World Vision International

Mark DeWitt, Independent

Anthony DiSalvatore, CPP, PSP, PCI, REVEL

Anthony Dobson, Independent

Richard Dobson, Luxottica

Maria Dominguez, CPP, Bank of America

Bobby Dominguez, CPP, CISSP, PMP, Infinite Computer Systems, Inc.




vi

Daniel Donohue, CPP, Caterpillar Inc.

Jack Dowling, CPP, PSP, JD Security Consultants, LLC

Kristen Drobnis, PMP, CBCP, CSOX, CGRM, CGRM-IT, TD Bank

David Droster, The Briggs & Stratton Corporation

Johan Du Plooy, CPP, Temi Group

Jason Dury, Independent

William Eardley, Independent

Nicholas Economou, M.B.A., Cablevision Systems Corporation

Michael Edgerton, CPP, Independent

Eduard Emde, CPP, CISSP, BMKISS Europe

Robert Fay Sr., IOSSI Unexploded Ordinance, Inc.

David Feeney, CPP, AlliedBarton Security Services

Ali Ferrer, PSP, Independent

Joseph Finley, Jr., Ph.D., CPP, G4S Secure Solutions, (USA), Inc.

Windom Fitzgerald, CPP, CHS-III, CFE, Fitzgerald Technology Group

Lawrence Fitzgerald, CPP, PSP, TRC Corporation

William Foos, CPP, Gannett Fleming, Inc.

Kevin Foster, CPEng, PhD, Foster Risk Management Ptg Ltd.

Thomas Frank, CPP, AbbVie Inc.

Sherryl Fraser, Algonquin College

Rudolf Friederich, CPP, Independent

Andrew Gale, CPP, CFE, PCIP, Independent

Francis Gallagher, PSP, Good Harbor Techmark, LLC

Nanpon Gambo, CSS, Nigerian Army

Scott Gane, CPP, CRISC, Gane Security Solutions

Douglas Glenn, PMP, SimplexGrinnell LP

Salvatore Grasso, Independent

Harold Grimsley, CPP, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida

Jeffrey Gruber, CPP, CHS-IV, Independent

Phillip Guffey, CPP, Roche Diagnostics

Carlos Guzman, Security 101

Mark Hankewycz, CPP, The Protection Engineering Group, Inc.

Steven Harback, CPP, Independent

Jerry Hart, MSc, SGS

Jeffrey Hauk, CPP, El Paso Water Utilities

Jeffrey Hawley, ARES Security Corporation

Patrick Hayden, Monsanto

Henri Hemery, PhD, RISK&CO

Alistair Hogg, CPP and MSc, Independent

Robert Holm, McDonald's USA

Diane Huberman-Arnold, Independent

George Huff, CBCP, BCMS Auditor, MBCI, Association of Contingency Planners (ACP)

Robert Hulshouser, CPP, Independent

John Hunepohl, PSP, ASSA ABLOY




vii

Russell Hunt, Independent

Adam Incher, CPP, ACT Government, Shared Services

Scott Jack, CPP, Baylor Health Care System

Calvin Jaeger, Independent

Celia Jarvis, SPHR, MCR, LLC

Katherine Johnson, Harsco Corporation

Tyson Johnson, CPP, Independent

Roger Johnston, CPP, Argonne National Laboratory

Nicholas Jones, CPP, Independent

Edward Jopeck, Independent

Matthew Jordan, CPP, Parsons Corporation

Richard Kibbey, CPP, PSP, Independent

Glen Kitteringham, CPP, Kitteringham Security Group, Inc.

Kelly Klatt, CPP, Loews Hotels

Don Knox, CPP, CITRMS, Caterpillar Inc.

Daniel Kropp, CPP, Towers Watson

Ellen Ku, CBCP, Association of Contingency Planners (ACP)

Michael Kuras, CBCP, CHP, AIM Specialty Health

Keith Kushner, TRC Corporation

Eliot Kushner, CPP, CHS-V, NICET, Pacific Gas & Electric

Henrik Laidlow-Petersen, Siemens Wind Power

Mukesh Lakhanpal, CPP, G4S Secure Services India Pvt. Ltd.

Ronald Lander, CPP, Ultrasafe Security Solutions

Robert Lang, Kennesaw State University

Laura Langone, JD, Juniper Networks, Inc.

Russell Law, PSP, Gralion, LLC

Donald Lee, Jr., CPP, First Citizens Bank of North Carolina

James Leflar, Jr., CPP, CBCP, MBCI, Zantech IT Services

Vickie Leighton, AMBCI, Avanade Inc.

Jeffrey Leonard, CPP, PSP, Securitas Critical Infrastructure Services, Inc.

Vincent Lombardi, Jr., E*TRADE Financial

Christopher Lowery, Celgene Corporation

James Lukaszewski, Risdall Public Relations

Grant Lundberg, First Citizens Bank of North Carolina

William Lutz, Jr., Security On-Line Systems, Inc.

Ashley MacDonald, NCSO (ACSA) CPO (IFPO), United Protection Services, Inc.

Anthony Macisco, CPP, The Densus Group

Virginia MacSuibhne, J.D., CCEP, Roche Molecular Systems

Tracy Male, CFCP, CBCA, Independent

Peter Marotto, M.Ed., Independent

Ronald Martin, CPP, Open Security Exchange

Jan Mattingly, CRM, RF, CIP, RiskResults Consulting Inc.

Christopher Mayer, Department of Defense

Joe Mazza, CHPP, Independent




viii

Lachlan McConnell, Orion Support, Inc. (OSI)

Timothy McCreight, Government of Alberta

Daniel McGarvey, Global Skills Exchange

Raymond McGill, CPP, Care Security Systems

James McGuffey, CPP, PSP, PCI, A.C.E. Security Consultants, LLC

Russell McGuire, Riskonnect, Inc.

Victoria McKenney, ACADEMI LLC

James Mecsics, Independent

Mohamed Fadhel Meddeb, Offline Solutions LLC

Paul Michaels, CISSP, CPP, ISP, PSP, PCI, CB&I Federal Services

Murray Mills, CPP, Independent

William Minear, II, CPP, West Virginia Military Authority

Mark Mirek, Beecher Carlson

George Mitchell, Independent

David Moore, PE, CSP, AcuTech Consulting Group

William Moore, PSP, Jacobs Engineering Inc.

Pedro Moreno, AMPM Mensajería

Andrew Morey, Independent

Dennis Morgan, DMMS Solutions

Andrew Morgan, STOPline Pty Ltd.

Juan Muñoz, CPP, Associated Projects International

Francisco Muñoz, CPP, Occidental Oil and Gas Corporation

Patrick Murphy, CPP, PSP, Marriott International Inc.

Drew Neckar, CPP, Mayo Clinic Health System

Joseph Nelson, CPP, State Street

Peter Nevins, ARM, ALCM, Independent

W. Barry Nixon, SPHR, National Institute for Prevention of Workplace Violence, Inc.

Curtis Noffsinger, CPP, PSP, Independent

Thomas Norman, CPP, PSP, Protection Partners International

Augustine Okereke, CPP, PZ Cussons Nigeria PLC

Joe Olmeda, CPP, PCI, Independent

Alexandros Paraskevas, Ph.D., Independent

Jeff Peck, PSP, City of Toronto

Jean Perois, CPP, PSP, Risk & Co.

Gene Perry, CPP, Independent

Kevin Peterson, CPP, CPOI, Innovative Protection Solutions, LLC

Axel Petri, Deutsche Telekom AG

Russ Phillips, MMTS Group

John Piper, Bearing LLC

Jose Piscione, CPP, PSP, West Corp

Frank Pisciotta, CPP, Business Protection Specialists, Inc.

Kurt Raffai, SaskGaming Corporation

Bala Ramanan, CISM, CRISC, CBCI, Microland Ltd.

Joseph Rector, CPP, PSP, PCI, 11th Security Forces Group




ix

Brett Reddock, M.Sc., ABCP, SEM, Unparalleled Technologies

James Reese, TigerSwan

Vince Regan, CPP, PSP, PCI, Anixter, Inc.

Shawn Reilly, CPP, CHPA, Tech Systems, Inc.

John Richardson, Initiative for Human Rights in Business

Thomas Rohr Sr., CPP, Carestream Health, Inc.

Ronald Ronacher, PSP, Arup

Craig Rydalch, CISSP, CISM, PMP, AIM Specialty Health

Michael Saad, CPP, Gane Security Solutions

Ed Schlichtenmyer, ABCP, ImpactWeather

Brian Schmidt, CPP, Independent

Michael Schroeder, CBCP, MBCI, US Equities Asset Management

Josh Schubring, CPP, Mulva International Inc.

Michael Severin, Independent

Alister Shepherd, Allen & Overy LLP

Maya Siegel, M. Siegel Associates

Jeffrey Slotnick, CPP, PSP, Setracon Inc.

Jeff Snider, The MITRE Corporation

Jose Miguel Sobron, United Nations

Christopher Spillman, PSP, Port Authority of NY & NJ, Office of Emergency Management

Gregory Staisiunas, CPP, CTI, FISSM, Independent

Teresa Stanford, CPP, Security Engineers, Inc.

Barry Stanford, CPP, Independent

J. Kelly Stewart, Newcastle Consulting LLC

Peter Stiernstedt, CPP, Cikraitz AB

John St-Ilma, PSP, NCSPF, Health Canada

Jeremy Sturgeon, CPP, CFE, Apple

Robert Summers, CPP, Summers Associates, LLC

Timothy Sutton, CPP, CHSS, Sorensen, Wilder & Associates (SWA)

Kenneth Szalontay, CPP, AlliedBarton Security Services

Scott Taylor, CPP, Exact Security Pty Ltd.

Scott Tezak, Professional Engineer, TRC Corporation

Rajeev Thykatt, Infosys BPO Ltd.

Yoriko Tobishima, InterRisk Research Institute & Consulting, Inc.

Lina Tsakiris, CPP, TD Bank

Ruth Unks, ARM, Maricopa County Community College District

Karim Vellani, CPP, Threat Analysis Group, LLC

Joop Verdonk, CPP, CPOI, European Security Academy

Heather Viccione, PSP, (RBS) Citizens Bank

Corey Vitello, Ph.D., Visa Inc.

Taz Wake, CISSP, CISM, CRISC, Halkyn Consulting

Todd Warren, Spring Hill College

Andrew Weaver, PSP, PMP, Markon, Inc.

Jerry Werries, First Citizens Bank of South Carolina




x

Michael White, CPP, CRM, Security Risk Canada

Allan Wick, CFE, CPP, PSP, PCI, CBCP, Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc.

William Wills, CPP, Independent

Wei-Ning Wong, Ph.D., CBCP, MBCI, Instramax

Loftin Woodiel, CPP, Missouri Baptist University

Greg Wurm, CPP, Anthem

Allison Wylde, SRM, Independent

Mark Yeakley, CPP, Bank of America

Michael Yip, BFL CANADA

Paul Yung, Ph.D., Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Davoud Zahedi, Transportation Security Administration Air Cargo Division

Richard Zijdemans, Medtronic Inc.

Mohamad Zineddin, Khalifa University

Jeffrey Zwirn, CPP, CFPS, CFE, IDS Research & Development, Inc.

Working Group Members

Committee Co-Chair: Carol Fox, ARM, Director of Strategic and Enterprise Practice, RIMS

Committee Co-Chair: Marc Siegel, Ph.D., Commissioner, ASIS Global Standards Initiative

Shayne Bates, CPP, LMC Consulting Group

Dennis Blass, CPP, PSP, CISSP, CFE, Children’s of Alabama

David Bunch, CPP, Independent

John Casas, PSP, John Casas & Associates LLC

Albert Concordia, CPP, ACE Group Insurance

Michael Crocker, CPP and CSC, Michael Crocker, CPP & Assoc., Inc.

Frank Davis, CPP, MSc. Security and Risk Management, Trident Manor

Donald Decker, CPP, CPM, Robson Forensic, Inc.

Sean Denson, World Vision International

Kristen Drobnis, PMP, CBCP, CSOX, CGRM, CGRM-IT, TD Bank

Johan Du Plooy, CPP, Temi Group

Jason Dury, Independent

Windom Fitzgerald, CPP, CHS-III, CFE, Fitzgerald Technology Group

Kevin Foster, CPEng, PhD, Foster Risk Management Ptg Ltd.

Thomas Frank, CPP, AbbVie Inc.

Jeffrey Gruber, CPP, CHS-IV, Independent

Alistair Hogg, CPP and MSc, Independent

George Huff, CBCP, BCMS Auditor, MBCI, Association of Contingency Planners (ACP)

Scott Jack, CPP, Baylor Health Care System

Calvin Jaeger, Independent

Glen Kitteringham, CPP, Kitteringham Security Group Inc.

James Leflar, Jr, CPP, CBCP, MBCI, Zantech IT Services

Vickie Leighton, AMBCI, Avanade Inc.

Jeffrey Leonard, CPP, PSP, Securitas Critical Infrastructure Services, Inc.




xi

Anthony Macisco, CPP, The Densus Group

Jan Mattingly, CRM, RF, CIP, RiskResults Consulting Inc.

William Minear, II, CPP, West Virginia Military Authority

Curtis Noffsinger, CPP, PSP, Independent

Kevin Peterson, CPP, CPOI, Innovative Protection Solutions, LLC

Vince Regan, CPP, PSP, PCI, Anixter, Inc.

Jeffrey Slotnick, CPP, PSP, Setracon Inc.

J. Kelly Stewart, Newcastle Consulting LLC

Jeremy Sturgeon, CPP, CFE, Apple

Andrew Weaver, PSP, PMP, Markon, Inc.

William Wills, CPP, Independent




xii

This page intentionally left blank.




xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... XV

0.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................................................... XV 0.2 DEFINITION OF RISK ASSESSMENT ...........................................................................................................................................XVI 0.3 QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ XVII 0.4 MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL AND SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................................ XVIII 0.5 PLAN-DO-CHECK-ACT MODEL ............................................................................................................................................... XIX

1 SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2 NORMATIVE REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 1

3 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 2

3.1 DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

4 PRINCIPLES .................................................................................................................................................................. 8

4.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 4.2 IMPARTIALITY, INDEPENDENCE, AND OBJECTIVITY ........................................................................................................................ 9 4.3 TRUST, COMPETENCE, AND DUE PROFESSIONAL CARE .................................................................................................................. 9 4.4 HONEST AND FAIR REPRESENTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 10 4.5 RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY ............................................................................................................................................ 10 4.6 CONSULTATIVE APPROACH .................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.7 FACT-BASED APPROACH ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 4.8 CONFIDENTIALITY ................................................................................................................................................................ 11 4.9 CHANGE MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 4.10 CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT ................................................................................................................................................. 11

5 MANAGING A RISK ASSESSMENT PROGRAM ............................................................................................................. 11

5.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................................................... 11 5.2 UNDERSTANDING THE ORGANIZATION AND ITS OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................... 12 5.3 ESTABLISHING THE FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................................................. 16 5.4 ESTABLISHING THE PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................ 22 5.5 IMPLEMENTING THE RISK ASSESSMENT PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................... 28 5.6 MONITORING THE RISK ASSESSMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................ 38 5.7 REVIEW AND IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................................................................................. 39

6 PERFORMING INDIVIDUAL RISK ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................................................... 40

6.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................................................... 40 6.2 COMMENCING THE RISK ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 40 6.3 PLANNING RISK ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................. 45 6.4 CONDUCTING RISK ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................................. 56 6.5 POST RISK ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................... 79

7 CONFIRMING THE COMPETENCE OF RISK ASSESSORS ................................................................................................ 82

7.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................................................... 82 7.2 COMPETENCE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 82

A RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS, DATA COLLECTION, AND SAMPLING ........................................................................... 88

A.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................................................... 88 A.2 TYPES OF INTERACTIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 88 A.3 ASSESSMENT PATHS............................................................................................................................................................. 89 A.4 SAMPLING ......................................................................................................................................................................... 89

B ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................. 93




xiv

B.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................................................... 93 B.2 APPLYING ROOT CAUSE TECHNIQUES ...................................................................................................................................... 93 B.3 TEN STEPS FOR EFFECTIVE ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 94

C BACKGROUND SCREENING AND SECURITY CLEARANCES ............................................................................................ 97

C.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................................................... 97 C.2 BACKGROUND CHECKS ......................................................................................................................................................... 97 C.3 INTERVIEWS........................................................................................................................................................................ 98 C.4 PRIVACY PROTECTION........................................................................................................................................................... 99

D CONTENTS OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ........................................................................................................ 100

E CONFIDENTIALITY AND DOCUMENT PROTECTION..................................................................................................... 102

F EXAMPLES OF RISK TREATMENT PROCEDURES THAT ENHANCE RESILIENCE OF THE ORGANIZATION ......................... 103

F.1 GENERAL .......................................................................................................................................................................... 103 F.2 PREVENTION AND MITIGATION PROCEDURES ........................................................................................................................... 103 F.3 RESPONSE PROCEDURES ...................................................................................................................................................... 104 F.4 CONTINUITY PROCEDURES ................................................................................................................................................... 105 F.5 RECOVERY PROCEDURES ..................................................................................................................................................... 106

G BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... 113

H BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................................ 116

TABLE OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS (BASED ON ISO 31000) ...........................................................................................................XVI FIGURE 2: PLAN-DO-CHECK-ACT MODEL ............................................................................................................................................ XIX FIGURE 3: FORMAL VS. INFORMAL RISK ASSESSMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 30 FIGURE 4: INFLUENCE DIAGRAM EXAMPLE .......................................................................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 5: RISK PORTFOLIO DESIGN FORMAT ...................................................................................................................................... 47 FIGURE 6: MANAGING UNCERTAINTY IN CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................ 48 FIGURE 7: ELEMENTS OF THREAT ....................................................................................................................................................... 65 FIGURE 8: DETERMINING THREAT LEVELS ............................................................................................................................................ 66 FIGURE 9: CRITICALITY AND CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 70 FIGURE 10: DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF RISK ..................................................................................................................................... 71 FIGURE 11: RISK EVALUATION FUNNEL ............................................................................................................................................... 74 FIGURE 12: CONCEPTUAL RISK “FRONTIER” ........................................................................................................................................ 75 FIGURE 13: SAMPLE MATRIX ............................................................................................................................................................ 76 FIGURE 14: SAMPLING PROCESS ....................................................................................................................................................... 90 FIGURE 15: DEFINE, ANALYZE AND SOLVE ........................................................................................................................................... 94 FIGURE 16: BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS (BIA) .................................................................................................................................. 114 FIGURE 17: EXAMPLE OF BIA METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 115 FIGURE 18: EXAMPLE OF BIA PROCESS ............................................................................................................................................. 115




xv

0 INTRODUCTION

0.1 General

A risk assessment provides the analytical foundation for risk management, therefore, a risk assessment

step of the overall risk assessment process is used to inform decision-making. By using a logical,

structured and consistent approach to assessing risk, persons responsible for decision-making can

systematically select from possible choices that are based on reason and best available information. In

order to achieve the organization’s overall and risk management objectives, those responsible for

conducting the risk assessment should follow a structured approach to review and analyze relevant facts,

observations, and possible outcomes. The output of the risk assessment process provides a basis for

informed decision-making to determine a particular course or courses of action.

The risk management process of an organization should support enterprise-wide strategic and

operational activities, as well as program and project-related activities. A risk assessment provides the

cornerstone for informed decision-making about how to address uncertainties in achieving an

organization’s objectives. Therefore, a comprehensive risk assessment is designed to consider the

organization’s vision, mission, values, and culture, as well as strategic and tactical objectives. It may

consider an organization's broader objectives and activities or some specific goals and objectives but in

all cases it assesses what can affect the achievement of these both positively or negatively.

In this Standard, we focus on risk assessments from the viewpoint that risk – the effect of uncertainty on

achieving objectives (particularly uncertainty with respect to future outcomes) – is a dynamic concept.

Therefore, risk assessments require proactive and ongoing monitoring of the internal and external

context of the organization, as well as its risks and treatment measures. Uncertainty is inseparable from

likelihood: the future plays out in various and differing scenarios, some more likely than others.

Throughout this Standard, risk is considered from the perspective of achievement of objectives and

outcomes; therefore, the effect of uncertainty on objectives may result in opportunities with potential

gains (“improving”), as well as threats that may result in potential losses (“worsening”). Risk assumes

that things will change, whether in the environment or in other circumstances.

This risk assessment standard provides guidance on developing and sustaining a coherent and effective

risk assessment program, including principles, managing an overall risk assessment program, and

performing individual risk assessments, along with confirming the competencies of risk assessors. This

standard is complementary to the standards noted in the normative references and follows the risk

assessment process outlined in the ISO 31000:2009 Risk management — Principles and guidelines and

illustrated in Figure 1. A well-defined risk assessment program and individual assessments provide the

foundation for the risk management process.

This Standard provides a generic model for conducting risk assessments (including impact analyses) for

risk management decision-making and for use with risk-based management system standards. Risk-

based management system standards require a defined, repeatable, and documented risk assessment

process. It provides the foundation for planning the management of issues addressed by a management

system standard, as well as identifies opportunities for improvements. Therefore, following the approach

described in this Standard, meets the requirements for the risk assessment process in management system

standards.




xvi

Figure 1: Risk Management Process (based on ISO 31000)

0.2 Definition of Risk Assessment

Risk assessment is the identification, analysis, and evaluation of uncertainties to objectives and outcomes.

It provides a comparison between the desired/undesired outcomes and expected rewards/losses of

organizational objectives. The risk assessment analyzes whether the uncertainty is within acceptable

boundaries and within the organization’s capacity to manage risk. The results of the risk assessment

inform the responsible and accountable decision maker(s) of choices available to effectively manage risk

to achieve the organization’s objectives. A risk assessment is a careful and methodical examination of

what could cause uncertainty, providing the basis to determine whether sufficient actions have been

taken to prevent negative outcomes, or enhance the opportunities to generate positive outcomes. It is

not possible to eliminate all risk and uncertainty, so the risk assessment helps prioritize the risks that

impact the quest to achieve organizational objectives. The context of the organization and risk

assessment provide the foundational information for:

Calculating the effects of uncertainty which impact desired outcomes;

Protecting an organization’s tangible and intangible assets including people; tangible assets

that are physical (i.e., site, building, equipment); intangible assets that are intellectual (i.e.,

information, processes, trade secrets); and abstract (i.e., image, reputation);

Safeguarding the integrity and continuity of its supply chain, services, and activities;

Understanding of the relative exposure to risk for current and planned activities;

Enhancing the achievement of objectives and identifying untapped opportunities;

Providing a mechanism for understanding the impact of a possible event;




xvii

Complying with the law and regulations; and

Identifying reasonable control measures needed to treat risk and their associated

cost/benefit.

The risk assessment is conducted in order to determine whether if, how, and to what extent the

organization’s objectives, desired outcomes, and assets may be impacted. A risk assessment is tailored

to the context in which the organization operates.

0.3 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis

Risk assessments can be accomplished in varying degrees of detail. The level of detail is dependent upon

the type of risk, purpose of the analysis, resource limitations, the information available to the assessor,

and communicating the risk assessment findings. Risk may be assessed using a quantitative

computational approach or a qualitative subjective approach, or a combination of both. In all cases the

underlying assumptions should be understood and documented. The types of analysis and context for

use are:

a) Qualitative analysis – relies on the reasoning and experiential judgment of assessment team

members and subject matter experts using terms, words, and images as descriptors of risk;

b) Quantitative analysis – relies on probabilities and statistics using mathematical formulas and

calculations to interpret numbers, data, and estimates; and

c) Combined approaches – can be complementary when the risk is better described and

communicated by a combination of subjective and numerical values.

In some cases, a qualitative analysis precedes a quantitative analysis in order to obtain an indication of

the level of risk and to identify principal risk factors as well as existing controls.

When choosing a qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, or a combination of both, the reliability and

validity of the available data should be considered. The nature of the risk factors and if they are

quantifiable should also be considered. For example, the value of intangible assets and likelihood of a

threat are often difficult to quantify and require qualitative analysis. Furthermore, consideration should

be given to the target audience for the receipt of the risk assessment outputs. Decision-makers respond

to the presentation of risk assessment outputs differently, depending on the type of analysis.

Quantitative assessments can be translated into qualitative terms for communicating with stakeholders

and management. Therefore, the analysis method should consider if one analysis method is more

understandable and usable than another method.

0.3.1 Qualitative Analysis

A qualitative analysis uses descriptive terms and phrases such as “minor”, “moderate”, “major”, or

“critical” to describe potential likelihoods and consequences of risk events, and the possibility of the

consequences occurring. The terms used to describe different risks and consequences should be clearly

defined, recognizing the same phrase may not be understood the same way when describing different

risks or by different people. Qualitative analyses can be used when numerical data is inadequate,

uncertain, or unavailable to properly describe the risk. They can also be implemented when an empirical

method of analysis for decision-making is appropriate, and when initial risk screening is deemed

acceptable in lieu of quantifiable methods.




xviii

A qualitative risk assessment may have advantages when:

a) Management and the governance body will better understand a descriptive presentation of risk;

b) Communicating and consulting risk with internal and external stakeholders will be more

effective verbalizing or visualizing the risk information;

c) Underlying or historical data are not available or uncertain;

d) Resources limitations make quantitative data gathering impractical;

e) A risk is not well-defined or understood;

f) Quantification would be unnecessarily complex and may be based on potentially erroneous

assumptions;

g) Multiple risks may drive business objectives; and

h) Addressing strategic risks, which tend to be harder to quantify than operational or financial

risks.

0.3.2 Quantitative Analysis

Quantitative analysis uses numeric comparisons to describe potential likelihoods and consequences

(including the likelihood of the consequences/impact occurring). The goal is to calculate objective

numeric values for each of the components of risk evaluated in the risk assessment (e.g., threat,

vulnerability, consequence). A cost/benefit analysis may also be included in the quantitative analysis.

More than a single numerical value may be used in this method of analysis, as the analysis may apply to

more than one category of risk or consequence.

A quantitative risk assessment may have advantages when:

a) The risk lends itself to quantification in numerical terms;

b) Numerical precision and presentation is required for a particular decision;

c) Quantitative metrics are used to measure performance and success in the organization;

d) Sufficient and appropriate data is available or can be readily obtained and is relevant for

predictive assessments;

e) Risk can be better communicated and understood through quantitative comparisons; and

f) There is general agreement on underlying assumptions.

0.4 Managing Organizational and Specific Risk Assessments

Organizational risk assessments encompass the overarching organizational structure, resources,

commitment, and documented methods used to plan and execute risk assessments. An effective program

is built by clearly defining the risk assessment objectives. A competent person with the appropriate

knowledge and experience should manage the risk assessment program and the organization should be

committed to allocating the necessary resources, people, and time to effectively administer the program

and its objectives. Priority should be given to assessing risks significant to the mission of the organization




xix

and the uncertainties in achieving desired outcomes (e.g., exploiting an opportunity, meeting obligations,

or managing risk-related events).

A comprehensive risk assessment program may comprise many different strategic and tactical risk

assessments – either ad-hoc or conducted at defined intervals or change(s) in circumstance(s). Individual

assessments within the overall risk assessment program are conducted within a clearly defined scope

and consistent with achieving the objectives of the overall risk assessment program. This Standard also

provides guidance on the preparation for and the execution of individual risk assessments.

0.5 Plan-Do-Check-Act Model

Similar to ISO 31000, this Standard utilizes the "Plan-Do-Check-Act" (PDCA) model for both the overall

risk assessment program as well as individual risk assessments. Figure 2 illustrates the PDCA model.

Figure 2: Plan-Do-Check-Act Model

The PDCA model is a clear, systematic, and documented approach to:

a) Set measurable policies, objectives, and targets;

b) Methodically implement the program;

c) Monitor, measure, and evaluate progress;

d) Identify, prevent, or remedy problems as they occur;

e) Assess competence requirements and train persons working on the organization’s behalf;




xx

f) Provide top management with a feedback loop to assess progress and make appropriate

changes to the risk assessment program; and

g) Manage information within the organization, thereby improving operational efficiency.

In conjunction with the PDCA model, this Standard uses a process approach for the risk assessment

program. A risk assessment program is a compilation of a system of interrelated activities; their

identification, linkages, and interactions can be referred to as a “process approach”. When designing a

risk assessment program, it is necessary to identify and manage many activities in order to function

effectively. Any activity using resources and managed in order to enable the transformation of inputs

into outputs can be considered to be a process. In developing the risk assessment program and individual

risk assessments, it is important to recognize that often the output from one process directly influences

the input of another process.



AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/ASIS/RIMS RA.1-2015

Risk Assessment

1

1 SCOPE

This Standard:

a) Provides guidance for establishing a risk assessment program and conducting individual risk

assessments consistent with ISO 31000:2009 Risk management — Principles and guidelines, and the

Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) Enterprise Risk

Management (ERM) framework;

b) Provides guidance on conducting risk assessments for risk- and resilience-based management

system standards for the disciplines of risk, resilience, security, crisis, continuity, and recovery

management, including principles of risk assessments, managing the risk assessment program,

and conducting risk assessments, as well as evaluation of competence of persons involved in

the risk assessment process;

c) Describes the process for conducting risk assessments consistent with the Plan-Do-Check-Act

Model; and

d) Provides the informational basis necessary for decision-makers to make informed decisions

about managing risks in the organization and its supply chain.

Organizations of all types and sizes can use the concepts and guidance of this Standard to conduct risk

assessments supporting their risk management activities. It is recommended that organizations

implementing risk- and resilience-based management system standards use the procedures described in

this Standard in conjunction with ISO 31000:2009 to conduct their risk management activities (see Figure

1).

This Standard is a guidance document and not intended as a specification for third-party certification. It

provides a comprehensive approach to establishing a risk assessment program and the conduct of

individual assessments. Implementation of this Standard should be tailored to the needs of the

organization.

2 NORMATIVE REFERENCES

The following standards contain provisions which, through reference in this text, constitute provisions

of this American National Standard. At the time of publication, the editions indicated were valid. All

standards are subject to revision, and parties to agreements based on this American National Standard

are encouraged to investigate the possibility of applying the most recent editions of the standards

indicated below.

a) ISO 31000:2009, Risk management — Principles and guidelines;

b) ISO/IEC 31010:2009, Risk management — Risk assessment techniques; and

c) ISO Guide 73:2009, Risk management — Vocabulary.



Documents

STANDARD · Click here to purchase the full version from the ANSI store. ANSI/ASIS/RIMS RA.1-2015. an American National Standard. ... leadership through the CSO Roundtable for the