Security governance & operating models
Security governance built on KRIs and drills
A security operating model built on decision-grade KRIs, clear ownership and escalation across the Three Lines of Defence, and assurance validated through drills and simulations.
- Define decision-grade KRIs for strategic risks and governance decisions
- Make ownership, thresholds, and escalation paths explicit across the Three Lines of Defence
- Validate capability through drills and simulations, not awareness alone
Decisions supported by governance
First line (delivery owners)
- How are controls implemented in delivery workflows, and what does “good” look like in practice?
- Which guardrails are enforced preventively, and what monitoring is required as a backstop?
Second line (risk and governance)
- Which KRIs and thresholds should drive decisions, and what actions are triggered?
- Which risks are trending up, and what decisions are required next?
Third line (internal audit)
- Where is independent assurance needed most, based on risk and control change?
- What reliance can be placed on first- and second-line testing, and what must be validated independently?
Outcomes this capability enables
Faster, more consistent decisions
Clear ownership and thresholds reduce re-opened decisions and ad hoc escalation.
Decision-grade risk visibility
KRIs are comparable across teams and time, tied to thresholds and actions.
Assurance proven through drills
Exercises and simulations validate behaviour under stress, not only awareness and documents.
Less exception churn
Accountability, calibration, and feedback loops reduce recurring governance disputes and exceptions.
What makes governance operational
Security governance is an operating model for decisions: who owns risk, how trade-offs are made, and how leadership knows whether risk is increasing or decreasing.
Ownership and decision rights
Decision rights and escalation paths are explicit across the Three Lines of Defence, so risk does not depend on informal negotiation.
- Clear boundaries and interfaces between lines
- Named owners for risks and controls
- Escalation thresholds that trigger decisions, not debate
Data-driven KRIs that change behaviour
Governance becomes effective when it can answer continuously what is changing, what matters, and what must be done next.
- Decision-relevant indicators, not vanity metrics
- Thresholds tied to actions and accountability
- Explainable metrics that spread risk understanding beyond the second line
Risk-based calibration
A model that treats every system and provider as equally critical becomes bureaucratic. Calibration keeps effort proportionate to impact.
- Thresholds reflect criticality, not one global standard
- Testing cadence increases where impact tolerance is lower
- Evidence expectations scale without growing linearly with scope
Assurance through drills
Capability is validated through drills and simulations coordinated across teams, with observable outcomes.
- Phishing training with measured simulation attempts
- Red team, purple team, and blue team drills tied to control objectives
- Scenario testing with remediation actions tracked to closure
Common traps
Patterns that slow decisions and weaken assurance in security governance.
Procedural ownership
Responsibilities exist on paper, but risks and controls do not have a clear, accountable owner.
Ad hoc escalation
Thresholds are unclear, so exceptions accumulate and decisions get delayed or politicised.
Fragmented taxonomy
Risk, control, and asset definitions differ across functions, so reporting cannot be reconciled.
Metrics without actions
Indicators exist, but they are not tied to decision thresholds, actions, or accountability.
Snapshot assurance
Assurance relies on periodic reviews, so drift stays invisible until audits or incidents.
Is your governance producing documentation but not decisions?
If recurring exceptions, slow decisions, and unclear ownership are creating friction across security and risk, this capability helps design a governance model that works in practice.