Understand the position
See risk assessments in the context of appetite, ownership and the controls already in place.
Aliph Risk & Compliance · Enterprise Risk
See the exposure.Know the next move.
Bring risk appetite, control performance and assurance into one connected view. Aliph Risk & Compliance helps teams explain the exposure, follow the evidence and put the next action in the right hands across the institution.
Built for your institution. Shaped around your data.
RisksControlsAssurance
A question worth askingEXAMPLE
Why does supplier concentration need a treatment decision?
The rating explains a decision instead of ending the conversation.
Notice what changed
Connect indicators and incidents to the risks that need another look.
Follow the response
Trace a finding through its action, owner and evidence of resolution.
SEE IT IN ACTION
Move from a risk view to a decision.
Explore assessment, monitoring and assurance through the same connected record.
01 / 03
Give the rating a reason.
Connect the assessment to the criteria, appetite and treatment decision behind it.
- Use a consistent taxonomy and impact and likelihood model.
- Compare the position with the appetite your institution has defined.
Interactive example with fictional data. The product’s configuration and interface may differ.
Risk and assurance workspace Example workspace
ASSESSMENT QUESTION
Why does supplier concentration need a treatment decision?
IdentifyAssessRespondMonitorAssure
The assessment places supplier concentration above the current appetite. The contingency arrangement is incomplete, so the procurement owner needs to propose a treatment and seek approval for any remaining exposure.
The rating explains a decision instead of ending the conversation.
THE CONTEXT BEHIND THE ANSWER3 example records
Risk assessment
Supplier concentration · Above appetite
Fictional record for this example. Control review
Contingency arrangement · Incomplete
Fictional record for this example. Ownership record
Procurement owner · Treatment proposal required
Fictional record for this example.02 / 03
See the signal and its context.
Bring indicators and incident information into the risk review before choosing a response.
- Monitor key risk and control indicators against defined thresholds.
- Follow a change to the records that explain it.
Interactive example with fictional data. The product’s configuration and interface may differ.
Risk and assurance workspace Example workspace
ASSESSMENT QUESTION
What changed in the service-continuity risk?
IdentifyAssessRespondMonitorAssure
The interruption indicator crossed its threshold after a supplier outage. The recovery-control indicator also needs review because the latest exercise is incomplete. The risk owner should reassess exposure using both records.
A signal becomes useful when its cause and consequence stay connected.
THE CONTEXT BEHIND THE ANSWER3 example records
Risk indicator
Service interruptions · Threshold crossed
Fictional record for this example. Incident record
Supplier outage · Recorded
Fictional record for this example. Control indicator
Recovery exercise · Incomplete
Fictional record for this example.03 / 03
Close the issue with evidence.
Follow the relationship between a finding, a completed action and the review required for closure.
- Connect control tests to findings and accountable actions.
- Separate reported completion from reviewed closure evidence.
Interactive example with fictional data. The product’s configuration and interface may differ.
Risk and assurance workspace Example workspace
ASSESSMENT QUESTION
Can we close the access-review finding?
IdentifyAssessRespondMonitorAssure
The action owner has reported completion, but the reviewer has not checked the revised access list. Keep the finding open until that evidence is reviewed and the authorised owner accepts closure.
A reviewed result gives closure a clear basis.
THE CONTEXT BEHIND THE ANSWER3 example records
Finding
Access-review exception · Open
Fictional record for this example. Action record
Revised access list supplied · Completion reported
Fictional record for this example. Assurance review
Evidence check and closure approval · Pending
Fictional record for this example.THE CAPABILITIES BEHIND IT
Run enterprise risk through one connected record.
Enterprise Risk is a module within Aliph Risk & Compliance. It connects the risk operating model to the wider register, so exposure, control performance and assurance decisions share a traceable foundation.
BUILT AROUND YOUR TEAM
Enterprise risk, compliance, internal control and assurance teams, process owners and oversight committees.
01Structure the risk taxonomy
Organise risks into the categories and organisational context used by your institution. Connect each record to an accountable owner and the business objectives or processes it affects.
02Assess impact and likelihood
Use a defined assessment model to record exposure and the reasoning behind a rating. Make the criteria, assessed period and review responsibility clear enough for another reviewer to follow.
03Connect risk to appetite
Bring appetite and tolerance into the assessment conversation. Identify where the current position needs treatment, escalation or an authorised decision rather than relying on a colour alone.
04Monitor KRI and KCI
Use key risk indicators and key control indicators to monitor the conditions that matter. Connect thresholds, observations and changes to the relevant risk or control record.
05Use incidents and heat maps
Bring incident context into risk review and use heat maps to focus attention across the register. Preserve access to the underlying records that explain a position or movement.
06Assess control effectiveness
Connect control design and performance to test criteria and supporting evidence. Distinguish the existence of a control from the evidence that it operated as intended.
07Run assurance through evidence
Link requirements, assessments, tests and findings in the shared evidence lifecycle. Keep scope, conclusions and information gaps visible to operational teams and reviewers.
08Own treatment and follow-up
Assign actions, owners and review dates to address findings or risk decisions. Record the evidence and authority behind closure, further work or accepted residual exposure.
From risk identification to an evidenced decision.Explore the process
Define the framework
Establish the taxonomy, assessment criteria, appetite and ownership model. Confirm the organisational scope and relevant obligations.
Identify and assess
Record the risk in context and assess impact and likelihood. Explain the rating and compare the position with the agreed appetite.
Connect controls and indicators
Relate the controls, KRI and KCI that inform management of the risk. Define their owners, evidence and review expectations.
Test and review evidence
Assess control effectiveness and inspect incidents or indicator changes. Record conclusions, limitations and findings against the relevant scope.
Decide and act
Assign treatment or remediation actions. Keep escalation and acceptance decisions with the authorised owners.
Report and reassess
Use register views and heat maps for oversight. Revisit the assessment as controls, incidents, indicators and business conditions change.
YOUR DATA. YOUR DECISIONS.
Your risk model, carried into the daily work.
Enterprise Risk sits inside the core GRC register. Shape the taxonomy, indicators and review authority around the way your institution manages exposure.
Explore the Aliph approachKeep the definitions consistent
Bring your taxonomy, scoring criteria and appetite statements into a model teams can interpret in the same way.
Connect the evidence
Link assessments, controls, tests and actions so reviewers can follow the reasoning behind the overview.
Preserve decision authority
Name who can treat, escalate, accept or close a risk, with the evidence each decision requires.
Plan your first implementation
Bring the risk operating model
Start with your taxonomy, impact and likelihood scales, appetite statements, registers and reporting expectations. Identify inconsistent definitions before migrating the records.
Connect assessment and monitoring
Define KRI/KCI ownership, thresholds, incident relationships, control tests and evidence requirements. Establish the approvals needed for treatment, escalation and acceptance.
Validate one complete evidence cycle
Test identification, assessment, control review, finding, action and reporting with representative records. Prepare data owners and reviewers to maintain the model after release.
What to evaluate. Check whether a risk position can be explained through its criteria, appetite, indicators and control evidence. Test incident-driven reassessment, missing evidence, threshold breaches, overdue actions and the authority required to accept or close an issue.
A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT
Make your next
decision an informed one.
Your questions, answered.
Is Enterprise Risk a separate Aliph product?
Enterprise Risk is a module within Aliph Risk & Compliance. It supplies the taxonomy, appetite, assessment, indicator and heat-map capabilities within the wider GRC register and evidence lifecycle.
How are KRI and KCI different?
A key risk indicator monitors a condition associated with exposure. A key control indicator monitors an aspect of control performance. The institution defines each indicator’s purpose, source, threshold and response so that a change leads to a meaningful review.
Can we use our existing taxonomy and risk appetite?
Yes. Your current framework is the starting point. Implementation aligns the taxonomy, scoring, appetite, ownership and reporting definitions so records remain comparable and the meaning of a result is clear.
How should a heat map be used?
Use it to focus attention, then inspect the underlying records. The assessment criteria, scope, control position and supporting evidence explain what a plotted risk means and which decision needs to follow.
How do the other GRC products connect?
Policy Vault holds governance commitments. Agentic Studio drafts assessments and reporting from governed records. AliphChat supports attributable questions across the register and other approved sources. Pursuit & Proposal Intelligence extends the governance approach to tender commitments.
Does the product establish a regulatory certification?
No. It supports the institution’s compliance and assurance process. Applicable obligations, assessment conclusions and any certification or regulatory determination remain the responsibility of the relevant authorised parties.
YOUR NEXT CHAPTER
Bring one risk from assessment to resolution.
We’ll trace its appetite, indicators, controls and actions, then show how the full picture can support your next review.