Purpose
The Governance Risk Diagnostic is a structured, independent evaluation of whether an organization’s governance and risk oversight architecture is sufficient for its current stage of growth and external scrutiny.
The objective is to provide boards, investors, and executive leadership with defensible clarity regarding governance resilience, risk concentration, and structural sufficiency.
This engagement evaluates oversight and control architecture. It does not implement controls.
When This Engagement Is Appropriate
A Governance Risk Diagnostic is typically undertaken when:
- Growth outpaces documented oversight structures
- Governance outcomes rely on informal processes or key individuals
- Investor or enterprise customer scrutiny increases
- Regulatory exposure expands
- A board requires independent assurance beyond compliance certifications
The Diagnostic is not a compliance checklist exercise. It is an evaluation of structural governance sufficiency.
Scope of Evaluation
The engagement evaluates governance and control architecture across five domains.
1. Governance Structure and Oversight
- Board and management role clarity
- Escalation thresholds and decision pathways
- Reporting cadence and risk visibility to governing authorities
- Concentration of authority and key-person dependency
2. IT General Control Sufficiency
- Access governance and privilege management
- Change management discipline
- Segregation of duties at an architectural level
- Documentation maturity and evidentiary support
3. Vendor and Dependency Risk
- Identification of critical vendors and system dependencies
- Oversight and monitoring mechanisms
- Concentration risk and operational resilience
- Third-party governance reporting readiness
4. Data Governance and Regulatory Exposure
- Data ownership and stewardship clarity
- Cross-border considerations and retention posture
- Incident escalation and accountability structures
- Documentation of regulatory obligations where applicable
5. Risk Management Formalization
- Existence and quality of risk register processes
- Articulation of risk appetite and governance alignment
- Consistency between management risk view and board oversight
- Prioritization and follow-up discipline
Scope is defined in advance and aligned to organizational context and complexity.
Method
The Diagnostic is evidence-based and structured.
- Targeted stakeholder interviews
- Review of relevant governance and control documentation
- Evaluation of technical and governance artifacts
- Mapping against appropriate control and governance frameworks
- Severity classification of findings (e.g., High / Moderate / Emerging)
Framework references may include COBIT, ISO, NIST, or other context-appropriate standards.
Deliverables
The engagement produces:
- A board-ready Executive Report
- A structured findings register with severity classification
- Clear control objectives for remediation
- A governance risk map highlighting concentrated exposure
- Presentation to the board or audit committee, where specified
Recommendations are articulated as governance and control objectives, not as technology or vendor prescriptions.
Timeline
Typical duration is four to six weeks, depending on organizational size, complexity, and stakeholder availability.
Independence
To preserve independence, control implementation and remediation activities remain the responsibility of management.
The Diagnostic evaluates sufficiency and reports findings. It does not participate in operational execution.
Follow-up evaluations may be conducted after remediation, where appropriate.
Engagement Inquiry
Organizations considering a Governance Risk Diagnostic may initiate discussion regarding scope, timing, and alignment with board reporting cycles.