Adaptability, is one of the properties of the Operational Compliance Model we introduced in previous

The Practical Consequence When organisations begin with hazard registers, threat models, risk matrices , and failure modes, they are starting with evil and trying to infer good.

Rationale mapping and functional modelling enhanced root cause analysis.

Make sure your scorecard covers your entire business model.

These risks are anticipated threats predicted by risk models, observations of past events, or other forms

For the purpose of this article, the following compliance systems model (introduced in a previous article These risks may be introduced due to changes (shown in red in the above model) to: scope, critical to These may be in the form of latent or active failure modes, gaps in capabilities, uncertainties in work

Apollo Method), STAMP (Systems Theoretic Accident Modelling and Processing), HAZOPS, and other techniques

Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2) Program The Department of Energy (DOE) developed what The model content is presented at a high enough level, so that it can be interpreted by organizations

However, compliance for the most has lagged behind and still functions using the old factory model using

Model-based Risk Assessmen t: This method uses computer models and simulations to predict the likelihood It involves creating a mathematical model of the system being assessed and running simulations to test

The scientific method aims to develop theoretical models and explanations for natural phenomena, while

A trained model's decision-making process often remains opaque, making it difficult to predict behaviour requirements that conflate technical capabilities with user needs, no systematic analysis of failure modes Each unaddressed bias, unanticipated failure mode, or unhandled edge case represents a choice about acceptable This means asking harder questions about requirements, spending more time analyzing potential failure modes