Episode 24: Establishing Risk and Control Ownership

Welcome to The Bare Metal Cyber CISM Prepcast. This series helps you prepare for the exam with focused explanations and practical context.
In any mature risk management program, clearly defined ownership is essential. Risk and control ownership ensures that someone is accountable for monitoring, responding to, and reporting on specific elements of organizational risk. Without ownership, decisions get delayed, responsibilities become unclear, and issues fall through the cracks. Defined ownership helps reduce ambiguity, allowing teams to know who is responsible for which actions. It strengthens communication between business units and risk functions and enables timely escalation and remediation when problems arise.
Ownership structures also support risk governance by providing clear points of contact and accountability across the risk lifecycle. Whether responding to an audit finding, updating a control, or approving a treatment strategy, every action needs someone who is directly responsible. Ownership turns strategy into execution and is foundational to operationalizing security across departments.
Risk ownership is a role assigned to an individual who is accountable for the full lifecycle of a specific risk. This means the owner must monitor the risk’s status, ensure it is assessed regularly, determine whether treatment is needed, and oversee any mitigation, acceptance, or transfer decisions. Typically, the risk owner is someone from the business function or operational unit most closely associated with the affected asset or process.
The risk owner must have sufficient authority to take action or request changes. They need to understand how the risk connects to organizational goals, compliance obligations, and service performance. While they can delegate specific tasks—like performing a control review or submitting documentation—they retain ultimate accountability for outcomes. Being a risk owner is not a passive assignment—it requires active engagement, awareness, and collaboration.
Control ownership is a separate but complementary concept. A control owner is responsible for the health and performance of a specific control. This includes ensuring that the control is properly designed, implemented, tested, and updated over time. The control owner must be familiar with the system, process, or workflow the control protects. They ensure that documentation is complete and current, that controls are tested on schedule, and that deficiencies are remediated.
Control owners support audit and compliance efforts by providing evidence and explaining how the control functions. They also work closely with risk owners. Together, they ensure that controls effectively manage the risks they are meant to address. Risk owners identify the need for controls, while control owners ensure they are functioning correctly. This relationship is essential for closing the loop between risk and mitigation.
Assigning ownership roles must be done with structure and intention. Role-based accountability models—such as RACI frameworks—can help clarify who is responsible, who must approve, who should be consulted, and who needs to be informed. Risks and controls should be linked to organizational units and job roles, not just individuals. This ensures continuity even when personnel change. Stakeholders should be involved in the assignment process to promote understanding and buy-in.
Review existing governance processes to identify natural candidates for ownership. For example, a system administrator may be best suited to own an access control, while a department head may own the risk associated with a critical business process. Assignments should be formally documented in risk registers and control catalogs. Without written records, accountability becomes difficult to enforce and track.
Once roles are assigned, responsibilities must be communicated clearly. Expectations should be included in policies, procedures, and governance documents. Owners should receive targeted training to help them understand what is expected and how to fulfill their role. Leadership should reinforce the importance of ownership in meetings, communications, and performance reviews. Visual tools like ownership maps or responsibility matrices help clarify accountability at a glance.
Performance evaluations should include ownership responsibilities. For example, if someone is assigned to a high-risk control, their review should reflect whether that control is being maintained effectively. Communicating responsibilities is not just about assigning tasks—it’s about embedding accountability into the culture of the organization.
Execution must be monitored to ensure responsibilities are being fulfilled. Risk assessments must be completed on schedule, and control reviews must be logged and tracked. Dashboards, governance tools, and risk platforms should display ownership status, overdue actions, and trends. Risk committees and security councils should request regular updates from owners.
Responsiveness to incidents, audit findings, or changes in the threat landscape is another key performance indicator. Delays in action can increase exposure. Organizations should establish escalation procedures for missed deadlines or ignored responsibilities. If an owner is unresponsive or lacks capacity, leadership must intervene and reassign as needed. Monitoring ensures that ownership remains active and aligned with program goals.
Escalation is a necessary component of any ownership framework. Risk owners and control owners need clear paths for escalating risks or problems they cannot resolve alone. This includes formal acceptance of unresolved risks, treatment deferral processes, or compensating controls. All exceptions must be documented, reviewed periodically, and approved through governance channels.
Governance committees must be involved when unresolved risks have high impact or cross multiple business units. Escalation paths must be transparent, documented, and repeatable. Security leaders must foster a culture where raising issues is seen as responsible—not risky. Without escalation processes, ownership frameworks break down under pressure.
Ownership must be aligned with the broader governance model. Risk and control assignments should be visible to senior leaders, boards, and auditors. Reports should show not just risk levels but also who is accountable for each item. Internal audit teams often rely on ownership documentation to track findings and follow-ups.
Ownership roles should be reviewed during organizational changes. Mergers, new systems, or shifts in strategic direction can invalidate previous assignments. Project governance and third-party risk management must also include ownership components. For example, vendors who own a control must be documented and monitored just like internal stakeholders. Alignment ensures that accountability remains intact across changing business landscapes.
There are common challenges in establishing ownership. Sometimes, roles and responsibilities are unclear, or authority boundaries overlap. Organizational silos can prevent communication between risk owners and control owners. Individuals may resist ownership if they perceive it as a burden or if there’s fear of being blamed for failures. Misalignment between security expectations and operational goals can also create friction.
Inconsistent enforcement is another issue. If one department takes ownership seriously and another does not, governance suffers. Overcoming these challenges requires leadership support, cross-functional coordination, and structured role definition. Education and culture-building efforts must reinforce that ownership is part of professional responsibility—not a punishment.
Sustaining ownership over time requires maintenance. Roles must be reviewed annually or after any major change to systems, structures, or business goals. Documentation must be updated regularly to reflect current assignments. Encourage feedback from owners about what’s working, what’s unclear, and what could be improved. This dialogue supports refinement and maturity.
Ownership should be reinforced through training programs, performance metrics, and leadership visibility. When executives talk about ownership, it becomes embedded in the culture. When ownership is taken seriously, issues are addressed quickly, decisions are made clearly, and accountability is upheld. Making ownership part of organizational DNA is a sign of risk maturity—and a critical capability for any CISM professional.
Thanks for joining us for this episode of The Bare Metal Cyber CISM Prepcast. For more episodes, tools, and study support, visit us at Bare Metal Cyber dot com.

Episode 24: Establishing Risk and Control Ownership
Broadcast by