Call/WhatsApp: +1 332 209 4094

a fictional scenario above describing security issues affecting organizational assets.

Paper details:
You are given a fictional scenario above describing security issues affecting organizational assets. You willidentify the risks associated with the assets, and recommend mitigating procedures. You will prepare a quantitative / qualitative risk assessment to address risk factors on organizational assets. Your final paper will be 15–25 pages long in a Word document (double-spaced with 12 point font) with APA citations for the resources you used in your research.

 

Risks associated with assests

. Not Knowing What you’ve got
In common manufacturing industry parlance, this is oftenreferred to as the FDH (Fat, Dumb and Happy) approach to asset management. While it’d seem intuitively obvious, many organizations either don’t appreciate the requirementto grasp with a high level of confidence, the assets that they need or they choose to not take the time to try to to so. Either way, this must be the primary major step taken towards ensuring that one’s asset management program is effective. Not knowing what one has is tantamount to playing a game of stunt. If a corporationis really serious about their program they’re going tohave to take the subsequent steps to ascertainthe correct foundation to create upon:

Develop an inventory of all the organization’s assets and verify this list with what’swithin the field.
Establish and configure a physical asset hierarchy. ISO 142242 from the coalition for Standardization (ISO) are often used as reference.
Develop the criticality evaluation criteria for the business and apply to the verified asset base. this can be where the individual assets are linked to how they affect the organizational strategic plan.
Develop and implement a Management of Change or Configuration Management process that maymake sure that any future changes to the asset are properly evaluated and recorded.
2. Over or Under Maintenance
During the operational phase of the asset life cycle, there will bean issue of over maintaining likewise as under maintaining. The key issue regarding over maintaining typically involves two issues that may make the asset management system ineffective. Firstly, there’s generally a big cost related to the execution of non-value-added maintenance. during this regard, cost are often loosely used as a tenet since there are well-documented industry benchmarks for maintenance spending that may be followed. Secondly, the standard organization which will be accused of over-maintaining its assets will presumably be performing intrusive maintenance tasks more frequently. From what we all know of how typical failures manifest, this suggests that there’ll be additional exposure risk for the business to infant mortality rate failures and further incurred costs.

The issue of under-maintenance and the way it prevents effective asset management is even more clear-cut. Maintenance is usually viewed as a disbursementhospitable cutting like all other so asto maximise profits. With these pressures, maintenance departments are constantly fightingthe way to balance cost with the performance requirements for the assets like reliability and uptime. cut often wins, however, within thevariety of delayed proactive maintenance furthermore as maintenance technicians lacking the mandatory skills and tools to perform precise work.

With relation to both the problems of over and under maintenance, the author’s recommended approach is, starting with the foremost critical assets, determine the optimum maintenance requirements of the assets through one among the more rigorous methodologies like Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM). Then, load level the resources (financial and human) required to implement the upkeep plan. Finally, make sure that a training plan is in situto shutthe talents gap of the persons required for the tasks.

3. Improper Operation
Many organizations suffer first of all from an absence of understanding of the inherent design capabilities of their assets and secondly, how best to control within their ranges to optimize the asset life cycle. for a few assets, either operating below or above the look range adversely affects the lifetime of the asset. an ideal example of this is oftenthe everyday centrifugal process pump, as illustrated within the pump curve in Figure 1. Operating on either side of the most effective efficiency point on the curve is in the middle of a myriad of life-shortening issues. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what we do once wefavor to speed things up, slow things down or continuously operate assets that were designed to be intermittently run. the simplest guidance that the author can give with relation to this issue is to: 1) learn how your assets should be run; 2) understand the results of operating outside of design ranges; and 3) if you can’t operate within the ranges, understand the chances or mitigate the risk (example: resize the impellor to match the operating point)

Mitigation procedures

Avoidance
If a risk presents an unwanted negative consequence, you will be ready to completely avoid those consequences. By stepping off from the business activities involved or designing out the causes of the chance you’ll be able to successfully avoid the occurrence of the undesired events.

One way to avoid risk is to exit the business, cancel the project, close the factory, etc. This has other consequences, yet it’s an option.

Another approach is to ascertain policies and procedures that assist the organization to foresee and avoid high-risk situations. By not starting a project that has a high unwanted risk successfully avoids that risk.

Testing or screening of products which will have a latent defect which can result in unwanted and unacceptably high field failures is an option. Screening isn’t 100% effective yet may reduce the chance of field failures sufficiently.

Design out of a product or process the weather that let an unwanted risk to arise. A product design change to a more robust material avoids unwanted failures because of unacceptable wear of a less robust material. Implementing engineering design reviews within the product lifecycle process may help identify high-risk areas of a replacement product or process before the choice to begin shipping.

Acceptance
Every product produced includes a finite chance of failing within the hands of your customer. When that risk is at an appropriate level, sufficiently low estimated field failure rate, then ship the merchandise. Accept the chance.

When the choice to just accept the chance is partially supported an estimate or prediction, there’s the danger the data incorrectly forecasts the long run. Therefore, for prime consequence related field failures, closely monitoring field performance or establishing early warning systems is also prudent.

Reduction or control
FMEA, hazard analysis, FTA, and other risk prioritization tools focus facilitate your and your organization identify and prioritize risks. Reducing the probability of occurrence or the severity of the results of an unwanted risk (say product failure) may be a natural outcome of risk prioritization tools.

If it’s impossible to cut back the occurrence or severity, then implementing controls is an option. Controls that either detect causes of unwanted events before the consequence occurring during use of the merchandise, or the detection of root causes of unwanted failures that the team can then avoid.

Controls may specialize in management or decision-making processes. Improving the flexibility to seek out design flaws or to enhance the accuracy of field failure rate prediction both improve the power to create the suitable decisions concerning risk.

Another method to cut back or control risk is to diversify. Thinking through the combination of products, technologies, markets, operations, and provide chains permit the team the power to limit the high-risk opportunities to a manageable or acceptable level.

Finally, unwanted events or high field failure rates will occur. Think through both how you’ll detect the onset of the event and the way to reply. it should be informed stop production and shipping when product failures, even one, features a major consequence (starts a home afire, for example). Have plans in situ. Acting quickly and appropriately may reduce the exposure to more failures/adverse consequences.

Transference
This strategy is to shift the burden of the chance consequence to a different party. this could include let alone some control, yet when something goes wrong your organization isn’t responsible.

This approach might not work to guard your brand image if the merchandise is related to your organization. whether or not the facility supply vendor pays for all damages because of failures in their unit, the customer only knows that your product has failed and caused damage. Use this approach with caution.

A conventional means to transfer risk to a different organization is with the acquisition of insurance. this might require a careful analysis of the presenting risks and probabilities, yet may be a viable option in some situations.

Contract terms with suppliers, vendors, contractors, etc may provide a method to shift risk faraway from your organization. as an example, if an influence supply fails in a fashionable server causing the loss of revenue for a customer, in typical situations, you may arouse and receive a replacement power supply. Or, you may require the facility supply vendor to hide the price of the whole server (which the facility supply caused to fail) and therefore the loss experienced by the customer.

Leave a Reply