CRISC レビュー マニュアル (デジタル版) によると、組織の文化は、すべての利害関係者のリスク認識、リスク態度、リスク行動、リスク コミュニケーションに影響を与えるため、組織内のリスク管理に影響を与える最も重要な要素です。組織の文化は、組織のメンバーの行動とやり取りの指針となる共通の価値観、信念、規範、期待として定義されます。組織の文化は、組織内でリスク管理がどのように認識され、サポートされ、実装され、統合されるかに影響します。強力なリスク文化とは、次のようなものです。
* 組織のビジョン、ミッション、戦略、目標と一致している
* リスクとそれが組織に与える影響についての共通理解を促進する
* あらゆるレベルでのリスクの特定、評価、対応、監視を奨励する
* リスク管理に対する積極的、協調的、透明性のあるアプローチを促進する
* Empowers and rewards the stakeholders for taking ownership and accountability of risks
* Enables continuous learning and improvement of risk management capabilities and maturity References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.3: IT Risk Culture, pp. 23-251

is incorrect. Requirements of the project is being defined after conducting feasibility
study.

The best key performance indicator (KPI) of the effectiveness of the policy requiring staff members to take a minimum of five consecutive days leave per year to mitigate the risk of malicious insider activities is the percentage of staff members taking leave according to the policy. A KPI is a quantifiable measure that evaluates the performance of a process, activity, or outcome against a predefined target or objective. The percentage of staff members taking leave according to the policy is the best KPI, because it directly measures the compliance and adherence of the staff members to the policy, which is the main objective of the policy. The policy aims to reduce the risk of malicious insider activities by forcing the staff members to take a break from their work, which can help to deter, detect, or prevent any fraudulent or unauthorized actions, such as data theft, sabotage, or manipulation12. The percentage of staff members taking leave according to the policy can also help to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy implementation and enforcement, and to identify and address any gaps or issues in the policy design or execution. The other options are not the best KPI, although they may be related or influential to the policy effectiveness. The number of malicious activities occurring during staff members' leave is a measure of the occurrence and impact of the risk events that the policy aims to mitigate, but it is not a direct measure of the policy performance or compliance. The number of malicious activities occurring during staff members' leave may also be affected by other factors or controls, such as the security systems, the audit procedures, or the external threats, which may not reflect the policy effectiveness. The percentage of staff members seeking exception to the policy is a measure of the resistance or dissatisfaction of the staff members to the policy, but it is not a direct measure of the policy performance or compliance. The percentage of staff members seeking exception to the policy may also be influenced by other factors or circumstances, such as the workload, the personal preferences, or the organizational culture, which may not indicate the policy effectiveness. The financial loss incurred due to malicious activities during staff members' leave is a measure of the consequence and severity of the risk events that the policy aims to mitigate, but it is not a direct measure of the policy performance or compliance. The financial loss incurred due to malicious activities during staff members' leave may also vary depending on the type, scale, or frequency of the malicious activities, or the recovery or compensation actions, which may not represent the policy effectiveness. References = How To Measure Risk Management KPI & Metrics - ERM Software, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): The Ultimate Guide - ClearPoint Strategy

Risk aggregation in a complex organization will be MOST successful when using the same scales in assessing risk, because it can help to ensure the consistency and comparability of the risk assessment results across different units, levels, and domains of the organization. Using the same scales in assessing risk can also help to avoid the potential errors or biases that may arise from using different scales, such as overestimating or underestimating the risk exposure, or misaligning the risk appetite and tolerance. The other options are not as important as using the same scales in assessing risk, because:
* Option B: Utilizing industry benchmarks is a good way to improve the quality and validity of the risk assessment results, but it does not ensure the success of the risk aggregation, which is the process of combining and consolidating the risk assessment results into a holistic and comprehensive view of the risk profile and exposure of the organization.
* Option C: Using reliable qualitative data for risk items is a useful way to capture and describe the risk items, which are the sources and causes of the risks, but it does not ensure the success of the risk aggregation, which is the process of quantifying and measuring the risk items, and their likelihood and impact on the business objectives and processes.
* Option D: Including primarily low-level risk factors is a necessary way to identify and assess the risk factors, which are the characteristics and attributes of the risks, but it does not ensure the success of the risk aggregation, which is the process of prioritizing and ranking the risk factors, and their significance and relevance to the organization's strategy and goals. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 105.