GCRI · Manajemen Risiko Sistemik
Tata kelola risiko dan selera risiko
Tata kelola risiko decides who owns each risk, how much of it an institution is willing to carry, and how that position is challenged and reported. Appetite statements and tolerances only matter if they shape decisions on strategy, investment and operations. This page sets out how governance arrangements work, where they fail for interconnected risks, and what evidence boards, ministers and supervisors need to set and review an appetite they can defend.
Risk governance and appetite in seven parts.
- 01PertanyaannyaRisk governance and appetite: how the risk develops
- 02Di seluruh domainRisk appetite set in one sector constrains the others
- 03IndikatorApa yang diukur, dan seberapa baik
- 04SumberDari mana bukti berasal
- 05KeputusanSiapa yang memutuskan, dan apa yang dilayani bukti
- 06Pertanyaan intiApa yang ditanyakan pakar tata kelola
- 07MekanismeWhy governance fails
Risk governance and appetite: how the risk develops.
Authority, objectives and acceptable exposure. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Ownership fragments across silos
Risks that cross departments, sectors or jurisdictions often have no single owner. Each unit manages its share, and the combined exposure, which sits between them, is reported by nobody.
Appetite is set without measures
An appetite statement written in qualitative terms cannot be checked against exposure. Without tolerances tied to indicators, breaches are noticed late or argued away.
Short horizons crowd out slow risks
Reporting cycles reward attention to near-term, familiar risks. Slow-building and low-frequency risks, such as dependency concentration or climate exposure, receive less scrutiny until they materialise.
Challenge weakens over time
Independent risk functions and non-executive members lose influence when information is filtered, incentives align with growth, or dissent is costly. Governance then confirms decisions rather than testing them.
Risk register.
Layar yang akan digunakan sebuah tim untuk mengikuti subjek ini: ukuran, status, dan keputusannya. Nama adalah contoh dan nilai bersifat ilustratif.
Daftar risiko
Risk governance and appetite · Enterprise A · Review cycle Q1
Risiko residual
kemungkinan × dampak, risiko per sel
Jumlah risiko per sel. Arsiran mengikuti pita selera risiko.
Di atas selera risiko
| Konsentrasi pemasok | Pengadaan | Tinggi | ▲ 1 |
| Banjir pusat data | Operasi | Tinggi | ▼ 0 |
| Galat model dalam penetapan harga | Keuangan | Sedang | ▲ 0 |
| Kehilangan staf kunci | Penduduk | Sedang | ▼ 1 |
Proses manajemen risiko, mengikuti standar internasional
- Lingkup, konteks, kriteriaditetapkan
- Identifikasitaksonomi
- Analisiskemungkinan · dampak
- Evaluasidibanding selera risiko
- Tanganirencana
- Pantau dan tinjauKRI
- Catat dan laporkandewan
Tindakan penanganan
- T-11Komponen kritis dengan dua sumberPemilik: pengadaan · terlambat14 hari terlambat
- T-14Pindahkan lokasi cadangan ke atas permukaan banjirPemilik: operasijatuh tempo 18 hari
- T-17Validasi model independenPemilik: keuanganjatuh tempo 15 hari
Risk appetite set in one sector constrains the others.
- AirKeterkaitanUtility boards set service reliability targets that fix how much drought and outage risk customers carry.What to watchStated levels of service for supply interruptions
- EnergiKeterkaitanReserve margins and stockholding obligations express a government’s appetite for supply risk.What to watchReserve margin policy and stock cover
- KesehatanKeterkaitanSurge capacity decisions set how much shock a health system can absorb.What to watchFunded surge beds and staff
Governance findings are designed for the seri Risiko dan Ketahanan Sistem Global. Risk appetite statements are decisions of boards and governments; the page describes how they are made and documented, following ISO 31000 and COSO, and sets none.
- Published risk appetite statements from public bodies, with dates.
- Cases where an appetite set in one sector moved risk to another.
Stok, aliran, jeda, dan ambang titik balik.
Dua stok, tekanan dan kapasitas adaptif, dihubungkan oleh lingkar pertumbuhan yang saling menguatkan, respons penyeimbang yang tertunda, dan kerusakan ketika tekanan melampaui kapasitas; melewati ambang, sistem dapat berbalik. Model pengajaran dengan nilai ilustratif yang dinyatakan, bukan prediksi.
Kendali
- Pertumbuhan tekanan
- 6,0% per tahun
- Efektivitas kapasitas dalam menurunkan tekanan
- 4,0% per tahun
- Respons investasi terhadap tekanan yang dirasakan
- 20%
- Jeda persepsi
- 4.0 tahun
- Ambang titik balik tekanan
- indeks 60
- Penguatan setelah melewati ambang
- 2.0 kali
- Tahun yang disimulasikan
- 50 tahun
Pembacaan
- Tekanan puncak
- 113 indeks
- Kapasitas di akhir
- indeks 186
- Tahun di atas ambang
- 15.8 tahun
Angka, metode, dan sumber
| Tahun | Tekanan | Kapasitas | Dirasakan |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 20.0 | 50.0 | 20.0 |
| 4 | 23.3 | 44.9 | 21.2 |
| 8 | 27.2 | 42.2 | 24.0 |
| 12 | 31.7 | 42.3 | 27.7 |
| 16 | 36.8 | 45.5 | 32.2 |
| 20 | 42.3 | 51.5 | 37.2 |
| 24 | 47.9 | 60.3 | 42.6 |
| 28 | 53.2 | 71.3 | 48.0 |
| 32 | 57.8 | 84.3 | 53.1 |
| 36 | 66.4 | 98.4 | 58.4 |
| 40 | 82.7 | 115.9 | 69.7 |
| 44 | 97.8 | 139.7 | 83.8 |
| 48 | 109.1 | 169.4 | 97.3 |
Metode
- Dinamika sistem Forrester (1961), Industrial Dynamics, MIT Press; Sterman (2000), Business Dynamics
- Transisi kritis dan titik balik Scheffer and others (2009), Early-warning signals for critical transitions, Nature 461
- Diagram lingkaran kausal Sterman (2000), Business Dynamics, McGraw-Hill
- Kipas ketidakpastian (Monte Carlo parameter) Spiegelhalter, Pearson and Short (2011), Visualising uncertainty about the future, Science 333
- Sensitivitas satu per satu (tornado) Saltelli and others (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley
Data
No observed data enters this model: it runs on the teaching values set by the controls, to be replaced with a programme’s own evidence.
Di seluruh enam pilar, dipimpin oleh Nexus Consortium
- Eksperimen Laboratorium
- Tertanam di Manajemen Risiko Sistemik di Foundry
- Diuji pada Manajemen Risiko Sistemik di Universe
- Dikodifikasi dalam Risiko Sistemik di Standards
- Diterbitkan di Manajemen Risiko Sistemik di Reports
- Diajarkan di Fakultas Ilmu dan Metode Risiko di Academy
Apa yang diukur, dan seberapa baik.
Setiap indikator membawa satuan, frekuensi, jenis sumber di baliknya, dan label bukti yang akan dibawa suatu nilai. Tidak ada nilai yang ditampilkan: sebuah program menyediakannya berdasarkan wewenangnya sendiri.
| Indikator | Unit | Kadensi | Jenis sumber | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risks with a named owner | percent of register entries | setiap kuartal | Daftar risiko | DILAPORKAN |
| Exposure against tolerance | ratio of measured exposure to stated tolerance | per reporting cycle | Risk reporting to the board or cabinet | DILAPORKAN |
| Tolerance breaches escalated on time | percent of breaches escalated within the defined period | setiap kuartal | Escalation logs | DILAPORKAN |
| Cross-cutting risks with joint ownership | count of risks with a cross-unit owner | tahunan | Tata kelola risiko charters | DINYATAKAN |
| Board time on principal risks | share of agenda time | tahunan | Board minutes and committee records | DILAPORKAN |
| Open audit findings on risk governance | count by age band | setiap kuartal | Internal audit tracking | DILAPORKAN |
How risk governance and appetite is modelled, measured and tested.
Model, asumsi, data, dan ketidakpastiannya, dalam bentuk yang akan diperiksa ilmuwan atau insinyur. Strukturnya mengikuti metode yang dipublikasikan. Nilai yang digambar bersifat ilustratif, bukan temuan.
Model, persamaan, dan asumsi
The model structure used for risk governance and appetite, the assumptions it makes and how each is tested.
Ri = f(Hi, Ei, Vi, Ci)bahaya, keterpaparan, kerentanan, dan kapasitas penanggulanganEAL = ∑k pk · Lkatas peristiwa k dengan probabilitas tahunan pkxt+1 = A xt + B ut + εtA carries the couplings, u the shock, ε the error| Asumsi | Mengapa ini dibuat | Bagaimana ini diuji |
|---|---|---|
| Bahaya dan eksposur bersifat independen dalam satu peristiwa | Menjaga integral kerugian tetap dapat dihitung | Bandingkan dengan pencocokan kopula pada catatan gabungan |
| Keterkaitan bersifat linear di dekat titik operasi | Membiarkan guncangan merambat melalui A | Uji di luar rentang linear lalu bandingkan |
| Kurva kerentanan dapat dipindahkan antartempat | Kurva lokal jarang tersedia | Validasi terhadap kerugian teramati jika tersedia |
- Masukan
- dataset berversi dengan asal-usul yang tercatat
- Keluaran
- distribusi, bukan angka tunggal
- Kode
- dirilis bersama kartu model dan pengujiannya
- Reproduksi
- data, kode, lingkungan, dan seed yang sama
Asal bukti.
Set data publik bernama dan catatan kelembagaan, masing-masing dengan kelas lisensinya. Sumber berdasarkan perjanjian hanya digunakan sesuai ketentuannya dan tidak pernah diterbitkan ulang.
| Sumber | Apa yang diberikannya | Kelas lisensi |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 31000 and its handbook | Principles and framework language for governance, roles and integration | Licensed standard, purchase required |
| Kerangka COSO Enterprise Risk Management | Components and principles on governance, culture and appetite | Licensed publication, purchase required |
| OECD Recommendation on the Governance of Critical Risks and its implementation reports | Country practice on national tata kelola risiko and coordination | Public, OECD terms of use |
| Published annual reports and principal risk disclosures | How organisations describe their risks, appetite and governance | Catatan publik, ketentuan per penerbit |
| National audit office reports on risk management in government | Independent findings on how public bodies govern risk | Public records, licence per office (to check) |
Siapa yang memutuskan, dan apa yang dilayani bukti.
Risiko Sistemik Management prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Siapa yang memutuskan | Pertanyaannya | Bukti yang dilayani halaman ini |
|---|---|---|
| Boards and risk committees | What level of each principal risk the organisation accepts, and when a breach triggers action | Appetite templates; exposure against tolerance; ownership gaps |
| Cabinet offices and centres of government | Who coordinates national risks that cross ministries | Ownership maps of cross-cutting risks; peer country governance practice |
| Supervisors and regulators | Whether a regulated entity’s tata kelola risiko is adequate for its exposures | Governance reviews against named principles; escalation records |
| Internal audit functions | Which risk governance processes to examine next | Open findings; areas with weak ownership or untested tolerances |
Keluaran yang dihasilkan topik ini
- Risk ownership maps that show cross-cutting exposures and their gaps
- Appetite and tolerance templates linked to measurable indicators
- Governance reviews framed against ISO 31000 and COSO principles
- Briefing notes for boards and cabinet committees on systemic exposures
Apa yang ditanyakan pakar tata kelola.
- Who has authority to accept a given risk, and is that authority clear before a crisis rather than improvised during one?
- Is the stated selera risiko connected to real limits, budgets and decisions, or is it a statement no one uses?
- How are risks that the organisation shares with others, or imposes on others, reflected in its appetite?
- How does the board or council learn when exposure is drifting beyond what it agreed?
Why governance fails.
Post-event reviews of major failures repeatedly find that warning signs existed inside the organisation. The failure was not a lack of information but of authority, incentives and channels that would have carried that information to someone able and willing to act.
Diffuse ownership
Risks that cross departments or organisations have no single owner, so no one is accountable when they materialise.
Cakrawala pendek
Rewards for near-term performance can favour risks whose costs arrive later or fall on others.
Filtered reporting
Bad news is softened as it moves upward, so leaders see a calmer picture than staff do.
How governance and appetite are designed and tested.
- 01
Appetite frameworks
Statements of appetite translated into tolerances and limits for specific risk types. They work best where risks can be measured and worst for novel or shared risks.
- 02
Lines of defence
Separation of risk-taking, risk oversight and independent assurance. The model clarifies roles but can encourage box-ticking if not used thoughtfully.
- 03
Analisis keputusan
Analisis keputusan dalam ketidakpastian makes trade-offs and values explicit. It depends on honest elicitation of preferences.
- 04
Governance reviews
Post-event and periodic reviews test whether governance worked as designed. They are only as useful as the willingness to act on them.
Cara hal ini dikaji, dan apa yang tidak dapat dinyatakan metodenya.
- 01Analisis keputusan dalam ketidakpastianPemilihan penanganan multikriteria · Pohon keputusan untuk rencana kontingensiDiterapkan di sini
- 02Kuantifikasi ketidakpastian dan validasi modelPerambatan ketidakpastian masukan · Pemisahan jenis-jenis ketidakpastian · Pembingkaian ketidakpastian mendalamDiterapkan di sini
- 03Probabilitas dan statistikaPemodelan frekuensi dan keparahan · Ketergantungan antarrisiko · Menggabungkan data dan penilaianDiterapkan di sini
Where this page’s references lead.
Badan dan dokumen yang menjadi acuan halaman ini. Status dan edisi berubah; setiap tautan menuju badan penerbitnya.
Tanya jawab.
What is risk appetite?
How is risk tolerance different from appetite?
Who should own a systemic risk?
Is a risk appetite statement required?
Can an organisation have appetite for systemic risk?
Does the platform review organisations’ governance?
Kontribusikan bukti dari halaman ini.
Laporan is the Consortium’s quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- SurelGerbang GW-GCRIKirim dari halaman iniBukti, koreksi, kasus, metode, tinjauan, terjemahan, atau masukan profil. Kiriman tiba dengan label halaman ini, sehingga editor pemiliknya menerimanya.
- ZenodoDeposit terbukaDeposit dan ajukan ke komunitasTerbitkan catatan Anda sendiri di Zenodo dengan ORCID iD Anda, lalu ajukan ke komunitas Reports di sana. Kurator meninjaunya; DOI tetap milik Anda.
- LaporanGCRILihat semua cara berkontribusiJenis kontribusi, cara masing-masing ditinjau, kredit yang Anda terima, lisensinya, dan apa yang tidak pernah diterima.
Jangan pernah mengirim data pribadi, rincian infrastruktur sensitif, atau apa pun yang tidak berhak Anda bagikan. Kontribusi ditinjau sebelum digunakan. Mengirimkannya tidak memberikan hak kepenulisan atau editorial, dan sponsor tidak pernah membeli sebuah temuan.
Bawa metode, dataset, atau pertanyaan.
Informasi dan pertanyaan sudah terbuka hari ini. Sebuah pertanyaan menerima nomor referensi dan menyebutkan langkah berikutnya; lamaran, pembayaran, alokasi komputasi, dan pendaftaran hanya dibuka ketika tim, ketentuan, dan kapasitas tinjauannya tersedia.
Dokumen hukum.
Peta, data, dan gambar di situs ini ditampilkan untuk konteks dan informasi umum. Semua itu bukan nasihat, prakiraan, atau peringatan; batasan informasinya dijelaskan dalam Penafian dan Pemberitahuan Data.