2011 Risk Analysis

1. 2011 Risk Analysis Feedback

2. 2011 Departmental Risk Register Overview • 54 Departments – 100% compliance • 866 Risks recorded • 550 risks assessed with: • Score of 25 or more • Impact 7 or more • Likelihood 7 or more • 222 assessed as recurring/common or potential emerging themes

3. Overview • Quality is variable and some scoring is questionable • Some Departments still using spreadsheets rather than Empirical • Caused significant extra work but: • Provides an excellent springboard for further engagement • Some departments who were very resistant to feedback last year are now complaining that they haven’t had any! • Still a view that a risk is a threat and very few opportunities (28) identified but number is growing.

4. Departmental Threat Risks - Distribution Impact https://wwwc.imperial.ac.uk/pls/apex/f?p=124:44:926479180426070::NO::: Likelihood

5. Overview Impact 7 or more 461 Likelihood 7 or more Total 124 26 40 58 Total Score 25 or more 395 227 234 63

6. Recurring Risks

7. High Likelihood Risks DEPARTMENTS Likely and High Impact Likely and medium impact Likely and low impact

8. Common Themes • Students • Numbers/quality 9 • Experience 6 • Overseas 5 • It would be of concern if Departments were not focused on students but there is no evidence of a systemic or consistent theme to this • Finance • Environment 27 • UG numbers/fees 8 • Inflation 5 • Research income 17 • Given the current global financial environment, it would be surprising if Finance did not feature extensively. There are no new items that do not also feature in the College risk register and Management Board are already conscious of changes to research funding and pressures on NHS funding that may leak across to the College. • Staff • Retention/recruitment/morale 35 • The strength of Imperial is in its staff and it is entirely appropriate that departments identify and manage the threats and opportunities this presents but no systemic issues are apparent. • Space 11 • The capital programme creates decants and uncertainty that inevitably concern departments individually. • Too many initiatives 4 • An inevitable consequence of being Imperial College!

9. Emerging Themes • REF 4 • Unsurprisingly, this is clearly an emerging theme • Organisation 13 • Further analysis shows no systemic organisational risk • Data/ICT/Software 13 • Further analysis dis not identify a consistent threat or opportunity • It is clear that there are a number of cross cutting themes: • Finance • Reputation • This is unsurprising as Impact is quantified by these two • Service delivery • It is for consideration that assessment of impact in terms of service delivery might prove to be a good early warning metric. This will be considered further. • Influence • Imperial’s ability to influence government policy, at an early stage of development, has been particularly apparent in the last year. Further consideration will be given to whether this is appropriately recognised and captured.

10. What Next • Align with College Risk Register • Although the College Risk register is more than a sum of department risks; department risks do inform the College risk register. • Commence feedback with focus on: • Value of exercise for Department • Quality of information • Consistency of scoring and terminology

11. What Next 2 • Consider how to utilise the cross cutting themes: • Finance • Reputation • Service Delivery • Influence • Explore value of risk appetite • Council Risk Committee has discussed how risk appetite might be used to add value to strategic objectives and this will be developed where appropriate.