HADRIAN’S WALL TRUST
RISK REGISTER
1. Risk Assessment
The Risk Assessment Policy sets out how Hadrian’s Wall Trust manages
identified risks against its strategic direction and operational outputs. This risk
analysis uses the table outlined below to assess the overall risk based on the
severity and the likelihood of the risk occurring. Having identified this risk and
assessed its impact to the organisation the control measures are also identified
in response to these.
The outline model is as shown below:
Impact Severity Multiplier
Fundamental
5
5
Major
4
4
Moderate
3
3
Minor
2
2
Insignificant
1
1
Multiplier
Likelihood
1
10
8
6
4
2
15
12
9
6
3
20
16
12
8
4
2
3
4
25
20
15
10
5
5
Almost
Rare Unlikely Possible Likely
Certain
Key
Unacceptable level of risk exposure which requires
immediate corrective action to be taken
Unacceptable level of risk exposure which requires
Major
12 - 16 constant active monitoring, and measures to be put
in place to reduce exposure
Acceptable level of risk exposure subject to regular
Moderate
5 - 10
active monitoring measures
Acceptable level of risk exposure subject to regular
Minor
3-4
passive monitoring measures
Acceptable level of risk subject to periodic passive
Insignificant 1 - 2
monitoring measures
Severe
20 - 25
Risk Register
1
April 2013
2. Risk Summary
Table 6 below summarises Tables 1–5. These risks have then been collated in
to the categories from severe to minor in Table 7 below. The range of risks is
predominantly in either moderate or minor with the controls applied.
Continued monitoring and review of risk will be undertaken in line with the
Policy Statement with reporting to the Board and Executive.
Table 6 - Summary table
Impact
Multiplier
Severity
Fundamental
5
Major
4
Moderate
3
Minor
Insignificant
2
1
Multiplier
Likelihood
HWT Strategic Risk
G1
S1
F4/G5
S4/F1
I2/S3/F5/F6/H2/
S2/G2/F2
F3/M1
I1
G3
I3/S5/G4/M2/H1
/H3
1
2
3
Rare
Unlikely
Possible
4
5
Almost
Likely
Certain
Table 7 – Risk Level Assessment
Key
Assessed risk
Fundamental 20 - 25
Unacceptable level of risk exposure S4/F1
requiring immediate corrective action
to be taken
Major
12 - 16
Unacceptable level of risk exposure S3, F3, F4, F5, F6,
requiring constant active monitoring, G5, M1, H2
and measures to be put in place to
reduce exposure
Moderate
5 - 10
Acceptable level of risk exposure S2, S5, F2, G1, G2,
subject to regular active monitoring G3, G4, M2, H1,
measures
H3,
Minor
3-4
Acceptable level of risk exposure S1
subject to regular passive monitoring
measures
Insignificant
1-2
Acceptable level of risk subject to
periodic passive monitoring measures
Risk Register
2
April 2013
3. Detailed Risk Analysis
Using this strategy HWT Executive have identified the following
3.1
Strategic Risk
Table 1 - HWT Strategic Risk
Impact Severity
Fundamental
Major
Moderate
Minor
Insignificant
Multiplier
5
4
3
2
1
Multiplier
Likelihood
HWT Strategic Risk
S4
S2
S3
S5
2
3
S1
1
4
5
Almost
Rare Unlikely Possible Likely
Certain
HWT Risk
S1 – The stakeholders and partnership fail to agree with HWT overall
Strategic Plan and objectives
This risk is mitigated through engagement, annual planning, KPIs and
communication. (Scoring – 3)
S2 – Partners do not see HWT as the lead in development of consistent
brand for Hadrian’s Wall
This risk is reduced through stakeholder engagement, clear leadership, results
driven and leverage through organisation. (Scoring – 8)
S3 - HWT does not receive support in relation to key site or
infrastructure developments from relevant partners
This risk is reduced through close working with strategic fit of projects, key
partners, project planning, stakeholder engagement and communication. The
key risk is poor quality interpretive outcomes and connections to the Frontier
story.
(Scoring – 12)
S4 – Fundamental shift of Govt policy attracting HWT funding partners
and jeopardising organisation and drawing expected funding away for
other purposes
This risk is strong as austerity measures bite and the economic climate
worsens. Govt has abolished the RDA’s - the primary source of funding for
HWT. Core funders English Heritage, Natural England and the Local Authorities
are also under increasing pressure to cut costs. Govt draws funding away from
Risk Register
3
April 2013
Development Agencies to support direct intervention to business. HWT must
ensure that funding partners and businesses in the HW Corridor are completely
supportive of our strategic plans and interventions and understand their longterm benefits. However, existing tourism funding strategies have been closed
and new ways of finding income must be found to compensate for any
shortfall. (Scoring 20)
S5 – Climate Change
Possible negative and positive effects on the Trail and outdoor activity options
and the overall archaeology of the WHS. Working in conjunction with partner
agencies who have commissioned analysis of possible effects in the north of
England, ensure HW Country businesses are prepared for change and that the
heritage is protected as far as possible. (Scoring 9)
3.2
Governance, legal and obligations
Table 2 - HWT Governance, legal and obligations risk
Impact Severity
Fundamental
Major
Moderate
Minor
Insignificant
Multiplier
5
4
3
2
1
Multiplier
Likelihood
HWT Strategic Risk
G1
G5
G2
G3
G4
1
2
3
4
5
Almost
Rare Unlikely Possible Likely
Certain
HWT Risk
G1 – Risk that HWT does not realise its duty in relation to WHS
This risk is reduced through clear referencing to WHS Management Plan by
progression of partnership, consultation and communication with all necessary
stakeholders. (Scoring – 10)
G2 – Funders do not provide core/additional finance due to failure of
governance framework
This risk is controlled through monitoring and evaluation meetings, governance
audits and training. (Scoring – 8)
G3 – HWT suffers a catastrophic loss of infrastructure resulting in loss
of operation and failure of delivery
This risk could be loss of building, IT failure, sudden loss of staff etc. HWT has
a Business Continuity Plan to manage this risk. (Scoring – 6)
Risk Register
4
April 2013
G4 – Insurance re Project Risk Assessment
Ensure insurances cover all possible risks to HWT. Evaluate this annually.
(Scoring 9)
G5 – HWT fails to be a going concern and is unable to meet obligations
and financial commitments.
Fundraising and project funding controls are in place.(Scoring 15)
3.3
Finance
Table 3 - HWT Finance & Projects Risk
Impact Severity
Fundamental
Major
Moderate
Minor
Insignificant
Multiplier
5
4
3
2
1
Multiplier
Likelihood
HWT Strategic Risk
1
F2
F4
F5/F6
F1
F3
2
3
4
5
Almost
Rare Unlikely Possible Likely
Certain
HWT Risk
F1 – Lack of overall core funding to achieve agreed outcomes
The core funding is known in advance and an Business Plan set to agreed
outputs (individual project budgets with outcomes are also set however these
are separately dependant on funding). However, the ambitions for the
Company are high and the risk is that core budgets have not covered all
essential activity causing attention to be diverted to fundraising rather than
strategic development. The HWT strategy in fundraising and delivery of
successful projects mitigates against this.(Scoring 20)
F2 - Risk of funding being clawed back by funders due to inappropriate
outcomes
This risk is reduced by setting of the Business Plan with agreed outcomes and
monitoring meetings with the funders. (Scoring – 8)
F3 - Development of further income streams to meet core & project
objectives fails to materialise
Due to the proactive application for project funding and fundraising, some of
this risk is mitigated. However, there remains a shortfall in core income to
protect HW and the HWPNT of approx £170k. Additional funding is required to
operate any of the non-core funded activity. Through engagement with key
Risk Register
5
April 2013
stakeholders, strategic fit, continuity of plans and communication of the
projects additional funding is currently available. No project is able to
commence without an adequate funding package in place. Strategy in place
(Scoring - 16)
F4 - Loss of credibility with stakeholders through lack of delivery/fit of
capital funding against HWT’s strategy
HWT, although not a funder, has agreed with the main funding bodies that
they will refer any potential developments to HWT for approval. This mitigates
the risk of inappropriate projects going forward and secures the credibility of
the Company. Lack of funding is a risk however is reduced through
stakeholder engagement and publicising of Strategic Policy & Business Plan.
(Scoring - 15)
F5 – Cashflow difficulties due to no company reserves
Through the Business Plan the cashflow for the organisation can be predicted
and is broken down month by month. This allows a full plan against
expenditure and this coupled with the claims system to funders considerably
reduces the risk. Reserves are being built as the Charity develops. (Scoring –
12)
F6 – Global economic climate affects banking infrastructure – HWT
money lost
Unlikely as all funds held in Co-operative Bank which is raising funds currently.
However, the Co-op Bank needs constant review. (Scoring 12)
3.4
Branding & Communications
Table 4 - HWT Branding & Communications Risk
Impact Severity
Fundamental
Major
Moderate
Minor
Insignificant
Multiplier
5
4
3
2
1
Multiplier
Likelihood
HWT Strategic Risk
M1
M2
1
2
3
4
5
Almost
Rare Unlikely Possible Likely
Certain
HWT Risk
Risk Register
6
April 2013
M1 – HWT does not have sufficient resource to mount a campaign in
line with required activity or stakeholder expectation
Building the profile for Hadrian’s Wall Country (HWC) will ensure greater
returns for all museums and destination partners. By building a project to
deliver the campaign required additional funding through a wide range of
partners is anticipated. Early engagement with stakeholders and through good
communications the risk is reduced. However all partner funding is reduced
which has strong impact on resources.
(Scoring - 16)
M2 – Media coverage proves negative
Any organisation may have poor PR however through professional support and
through consistent HWT messages this can be reduced. Through also having
good community engagement any negativity can be reduced. (Scoring – 9)
3.5
Human Resources
Table 5 - HWT HR Risk
Impact Severity
Fundamental
Major
Moderate
Minor
Insignificant
Multiplier
5
4
3
2
1
Multiplier
Likelihood
HWT Strategic Risk
H2
H1/H3
1
2
3
4
5
Almost
Rare Unlikely Possible Likely
Certain
HWT Risk
H1 – HWT fail to retain or attract calibre of staff required to deliver
business plan
HWT has adopted staff friendly policies and operates in an inclusive manner
creating a good working environment. Through the drastic funding cuts, staff
have been retained with a high sense of job satisfaction. However, uncertainty
around future funding may negatively impact this position as people need to
secure their futures. (Scoring - 9)
H2 – HWT fails to have sufficient resource to deliver programme of
work
Through the use of the Business Plan, KPIs and personal objective setting this
risk is reduced. Any additional work not already assigned/agreed to would form
part of a new project with set outcomes, budget, monitoring and staffing
Risk Register
7
April 2013
resource requirements. These would be managed on a project by project basis
so as no over commitment is given. However, key human resources remain
very stretched. (Scoring - 12)
H3 – HWT fail to keep on top of health & safety legislation
HWT has two fully trained and up-to-date Health and Safety practitioners. HWT
has a Health and Safety Team that meet twice a year to review and update the
health & safety manual and discuss potential issues. External consultants are
also used to provide up to date legislation advice and independent review.
(Scoring - 9)
3.6
Fundraising
Table 6 - HWT Fundraising Risk
Impact Severity
Fundamental
Major
Moderate
Minor
Insignificant
Multiplier
5
4
3
2
1
Multiplier
Likelihood
HWT Strategic Risk
I1/I2
I3
1
2
3
4
5
Almost
Rare Unlikely Possible Likely
Certain
HWT Risk
I1 – HWT has insufficient capacity to raise funds.
HWT is aiming to realise funds to pay for fundraising support through restructuring, economy cuts and applying for capacity building and transition funding.
(Scoring 12)
I2 – The economic climate means everyone and many organisations are
short of funds to give.
HWT must create the strongest possible case for support in an appropriate manner
for appropriate funders. (Scoring 12)
I3 – Technology failure of key fundraising mechanism.
HWT must invest in appropriate support. (Scoring 9)
Risk Register
8
April 2013