Detail the risk. For multiple risks related to the same project, complete a separate form for each.
Identify the key areas impacted by the risk.
Assuming no controls are in place, assess the risk in each impact area.
List the causes of the risk, the preventive controls in place, and their effectiveness.
List the consequences of the risk, the mitigative controls in place, and their effectiveness.
Considering the effectiveness of the preventive and mitigative controls, reassess the risk in each impact area.
Evaluation of control effectiveness and assessment of whether the residual risk rating aligns with the defined risk appetite to determine if additional treatment is necessary.
The arrow shows the impact the controls have in reducing the consequence and/or likelihood of the risk event
| Impact Area | Inherent Risk | Residual Risk | Risk Appetite | Alignment Status |
|---|
Is the residual project risk As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP)?
ALARP status is determined by risk appetite alignment. When all impact areas are aligned with their defined appetite levels, ALARP is "Yes".
Risk Appetite Levels: Avoid: Little or no appetite - Only Low residual risk is considered aligned. Cautious: Small appetite - Low and Medium residual risks are considered aligned. Accept: Medium appetite - Low, Medium, and High residual risks are considered aligned. Receptive: Large appetite - All levels Low, Medium, High and Critical residual risks are considered aligned.
Disclaimer: The assessment is based on the best available information at the time of preparation. However, inherent limitations and uncertainties may affect its completeness and accuracy. Outcomes should be interpreted accordingly.
List the treatment actions to address risks that are not As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).
Enter the details for next review.