ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAA
1
WESTERN SYDNEY UNIVERSITY RISK ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (A4 print)
2
Project:
Select Rating between 1 - 5 where: 1= Very Low, 5= Very high
3
Facilitator:
Overall risk level is a result of "Likelihood x Impact"(auto-calculated; no need to fill in)
4
Identifier:
School/ Unit:
5
A)
RISK ASSESSMENT
6
ReferenceIdentificationRisk rating (Key 1)Control effectiveness rating (Key 2)Overal residual risk rating (Auto calculated by system)MitigationControl/ Monitor
7
IDDate
Raised		Risk CategoryDescription of Risk (D) Impact to the University (E)Likelihood ImpactOverall RiskControls in place (I)Control effectivenessFurther Actions (L)Mitigation Actions
Tracking Strategy (M)		Action due
date		Risk Owner
8
Brief Guide - lines:Adverse effects or events that affect the achievement of the organisation's objectives/ potential opportunity that may add value to the organisation's operationsPossible impact/ consequence if the event occurs: in $ or some other qualitative measures e.g. university image/ staff morale etc.rating 1-5rating 1-5auto-calculatedIf there are any strategies or controls already in place for the corresponding risksrating 1-5Options to manage/ mitigate risks identified if the existing controls are considered inadequate or ineffective e.g. to avoid/ transfer/ control the residual risks that are intolerableHow the risks and the corresponding mitigation actions can be monitoredActions completion dateWho implements the actions
9
0
10
0
11
0
12
0
13
0
14
15
KEYS FOR RATING SCALE:
16
17
Key 1:
RISK RATING SCALE (The risk level for the issues raised in (D) will be assessed without taking into account existing controls e.g.. management strategies, checks & balances, policies & procedures etc.).
18
Overall RatingLikelihoodImpact / Consequence
19
(L) X (I)(L)(I)
20
Critical(5) Almost certain(5) Catastrophic • Potential financial impact of $10m ($1m)(a) or more
• Detrimental impact on operations or major projects
• Sustained loss in reputation , • Life threatening
• Sustained impact on services or quality

• Loss of public confidence in the University
• Contractual, legislative or regulatory non-compliance with certain litigation, prosecution or penalties
21
22
> 20
23
High(4) Likely(4) Major• Potential financial impact of $5m ($500,000) or more
• Major impact on operations or major projects
• Serious loss in reputation , • Extensive injuries
• Serious impact on services or quality
• Probable loss of public confidence in the University
• Contractual, legislative or regulatory non-compliance with probable litigation, prosecution or penalties
24
25
26
≥ 13 & ≤ 19
27
Moderate(3) Possible(3) Moderate• Potential financial impact of $2m ($200,000) or more
• Moderate impact on operations or major projects
• Short-term loss in reputation , • Minor injuries
• Moderate decline in services or quality
• Possible loss of public confidence in the University
• Contractual, legislative or regulatory non-compliance with potential for litigation, prosecution or penalties
28
29
30
≥ 5 & ≤ 12
31
Low(2) Unlikely(2) Minor• Potential financial impact of less than $1m ($100,000)
• Minor impact on operations or major projects
• No loss in reputation , • Potential for injury
• Minor impact on services or quality
• No loss of public confidence in the University
• Contractual, legislative or regulatory non-compliance but unlikely to result in litigation, prosecution or penalties
32
33
34
≥ 3 & ≤ 4
35
Very Low(1) Rare(1) Insignificant• Potential financial impact less than $1m (< $100,000) • Impact can be absorbed by daily business running costs
36
37
≤ 2
38
Risk Category (drop down list)
39
Key 2:
EVALUATION ON CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS (including assessment of control design and implementation)
 Academic (Course quality) Legal
40
Assessment scale – Effectiveness of existing controls (in Column I) for mitigating the risk identified Academic (Program delivery) Legislation
41
1RobustHave significant impact on risk and achieving organisation objectives Academic (Research) Organisational
42
2EffectiveHave a direct impact on risk Behaviour Political
43
3Adequate but marginalRelevant to address corresponding risk Environmental Reputation
44
4Need improvementNeed substantial revision to improve effectiveness Financial Technology
45
5Deficient/ineffective (b)No impact on risk mitigation Infrastructure Others
46
 InternationalRef. to Risk Category column ( C )
47
<notes>
(a)
Figure in bracket representing the financial impact to individual business unit/ operation/ project
48
(b)
Controls are excessive, impose more damages than benefits and/or reduce efficiency in operations or likelihood of achieving objectives
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100