| Booklet:
Management
Section: IT
Risk Management Process
Subsection:
Measure and
Monitor
|
| |
| |
Action
Summary 
Financial
institutions should continuously measure and monitor the risk profile
of their IT functions. Metrics, as part of the monitoring process, will
aid management in its ability to assess the overall program. The specific
metrics reported, and the frequency, will depend upon the IT environment
of the institution. Some common examples are:
| |
The
current number of risk issues identified for each IT discipline (updated
regularly to reflect new or mitigated issues); |
| |
The
current number of risk acceptance issues approved by senior management
(a database or other repository of the descriptions, mitigation options,
and evidence of management acceptance should be maintained); |
| |
Current
and historical counts of events or issues (external and internal events
that deviate from the control standards); and |
| |
Current
counts of internal audit, external audit, or regulator identified
issues. |
PLAN-TO-ACTUAL OUTCOME MEASURES (OUTCOME-BASED MEASUREMENT)
Financial institutions should periodically review their IT function and
determine if their plan, goals, and expectations are on target. Given
the cost of, and business reliance upon, IT functions, failure to perform
such measurements could put the institution at risk. Management should
measure outsourced relationships by the penalties and incentive clauses
in the service contracts.
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Financial institutions should establish performance benchmarks or standards
for IT functions and monitor them on a regular basis. Such monitoring
can identify potential problem areas and provide assurance that IT functions
are meeting the objectives. Areas to consider include mainframe and network
availability, data center availability, system reruns, out of balance
conditions, response time, error rates, data entry volumes, special requests,
and problem reports.
SERVICE LEVELS
Financial institutions should establish formal service level agreements
with their IT provider, for both in-house and outsourced functions. Service
level agreements (SLAs) establish mutual expectations and provide a baseline
to measure IT performance. Management can also tie SLAs to incentive and
penalty actions. SLAs should broadly cover the IT environment to provide
the institution the greatest level of assurance. Performance benchmarks
and outcome-based measurements (see above) are examples of SLA issues.
QUALITY
ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
Management should establish quality assurance procedures and update future
planning with the quality assurance results. These procedures may include
internal performance measures, focus groups, and customer surveys. Management
should conduct quality assurance reviews for all significant activities
both internally and with another organization.
The traditional goal of Quality Assurance (QA) activities is to ensure
the product conforms to specifications, and is fit to use. QA asks three
fundamental questions: Does it work? Does it do what it is designed to
do? Is it fit for use? The purpose of quality Control (QC) activities
is to identify weaknesses in work products and to avoid the resource drain
and expense of redoing a task. While financial institutions will benefit
from that perspective, they also have additional incentives to incorporate
QA functions into their IT environment. QA functions can be effective
in preventing internal fraud. For example, management can conduct quality
assurance testing on a new system before implementation. The testing should
be independent of any programming function (if developed in-house) and
incorporate user acceptance testing programs (if off-the-shelf). The thorough
testing of a new system can identify malicious code or poor functionality.
QA reports are a valuable tool for management and help document the control
process for the production environment.
POLICY COMPLIANCE
Financial institutions should develop, implement, and monitor a process
to measure IT compliance with their established policies, standards, and
practices. In addition to the traditional reliance upon internal and third
party audit functions, financial institutions should perform self-assessments
on a periodic basis. The scope and frequency of self- assessments will
depend upon the scale and historical performance of the IT function. Self-assessment
activities broaden management’s perspective by involving a varied
audience and by requiring acknowledgement of the results by those involved.
The self-assessment process can help identify the need for policy changes
and updates.
|