Assurance and Audit
As awareness of risk exposure expands, boards have been pushing for a single view of all risk, assurance and audit activities. Upgrades to risk management infrastructure has seen a pick up of a range of independent systems with the glue being applied via BI frameworks, attempting to display everything in one place. But fundamental problems remain: differences in methodologies, terminology, categorisations, measures, and processes, have ensured that consistency remains elusive. Management teams, audit committees, and boards still lack a clear, accurate, and comprehensive picture of the risks to their organisation and the monitoring in place.
How much time are you spending massaging data to make sense?

To Succeed:
What Good Looks Like:
To read more on this topic take a look at:
Deloitte Article: Integrated Risk Assurance
Over the past decade, as financial, operational, strategic, cyber, reputational, and other risks have proliferated, organizations have been working on effective responses. Boards have placed risk oversight at the top of their agendas. Senior executives have upgraded the risk management infrastructure. Businesses and IT functions have adopted tools and solutions. Compliance, risk management,and chief audit executives have enhanced their functions’ capabilities.
Yet many management teams, audit committees, and boards still lack a clear, accurate, and comprehensive picture of the truly greatest risks to their organization and of the risk management programs that protect the organization. Ultimately, the purpose of risk frameworks, assurance and audit activities is to strengthen an organization’s controls to preserve shareholder value. From board directors to line managers, everyone occasionally loses sight of why these valuable governance mechanisms exist, relegating them to bureaucratic check-the-box exercises.