Certified: The CRISC Prepcast

Welcome to The Bare Metal Cyber CRISC Prepcast. This series helps you prepare for the exam with focused explanations and practical context.
Establishing ownership is one of the most important foundations of risk management. When no one is clearly responsible for a risk or a control, there is no way to ensure that the issue will be addressed, monitored, or treated. Without ownership, assessments go stale, treatment actions are delayed, and controls drift away from their intended design. Ownership is what connects risk and control to action. It links analysis to accountability and enables proper escalation, performance tracking, and audit readiness. CRISC professionals play a key role in making sure that ownership is assigned, clearly understood, and regularly reviewed. On the exam, questions that describe a risk falling through the cracks often point to unclear or missing ownership as the root cause.
Understanding the difference between a risk owner and a control owner is essential. The risk owner is accountable for managing a specific risk and deciding how it should be treated—whether that means mitigation, transfer, acceptance, or avoidance. The control owner, on the other hand, is responsible for implementing and maintaining a specific control that helps manage that risk. Risk owners operate at a strategic level, setting direction and making decisions about tolerance. Control owners work at the operational level, focusing on execution and performance. These roles are distinct but must work together for mitigation to be effective. On the exam, expect scenarios where confusion between these roles results in action delays or mismatched responsibilities. The correct answer will reinforce the need for role clarity and collaboration between strategy and operations.
Assigning ownership is not arbitrary—it must be based on functional responsibility, authority, and visibility. Risk ownership should typically go to individuals who have oversight over the business process, system, or function that the risk affects. This includes business process owners, IT system managers, and compliance leaders, especially for regulatory-related risks. Control ownership, by contrast, should be assigned to those who are directly responsible for implementing or maintaining the control. This may include technical leads, process managers, or operations supervisors. Assignments must reflect who has the authority to act, who understands the context, and who can ensure that tasks are completed. On the exam, if a risk is assigned to someone without authority to treat it, or if a control is assigned to someone unfamiliar with the system, it indicates poor governance. Strong answers align ownership with the ability to act and deliver results.
To further clarify accountability—especially in environments where responsibilities overlap—the RACI matrix is a helpful tool. RACI stands for Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed. It helps define not just who owns a task, but who contributes input, who must be kept in the loop, and who is ultimately accountable for outcomes. In large organizations or cross-functional teams, risk and control decisions may touch multiple groups. Without RACI, ambiguity can cause confusion, delays, or conflicting actions. When ownership is unclear, decisions are often deferred or duplicated. CRISC professionals use RACI to create structure and support alignment. Entries from RACI matrices can be included in the risk register or governance platforms to support documentation and reviews. On the exam, role confusion often points to a missing or outdated RACI definition.
Ownership must be documented clearly within the organization's governance tools. Every risk entry in the risk register should list a named risk owner. Similarly, every control in the control library should list a named control owner, along with current status and testing results. Contact information should be included to allow direct communication, along with a review cadence and an escalation tier. Without this documentation, accountability becomes informal and hard to enforce. Missed treatment deadlines, audit findings, and failed reviews often trace back to undocumented or expired ownership. If a scenario on the exam describes a team not knowing who was responsible, it likely means the risk or control lacked documented ownership. The correct response will involve formalizing the assignment and updating governance records.
Assigning ownership is not enough—it must also be communicated and reinforced. This can be done through formal policies, onboarding procedures, training programs, and governance meetings. Risk and control owners must be made aware of their responsibilities and the expectations tied to their roles. Periodic reminders—such as emails or meeting updates—help reinforce that accountability is ongoing. Governance, risk, and compliance tools can automate much of this process, including sending notifications when ownership is assigned or when a risk status requires review. Acceptance workflows can also ensure that owners acknowledge their assignments. On the exam, scenarios involving confusion or neglect often highlight poor communication. The best answers support not just assigning ownership, but also ensuring that the assignment is received, understood, and acknowledged.
There are times when ownership must be escalated or reassigned. Escalation should occur when a risk exceeds tolerance levels, when the assigned owner cannot treat or accept the risk, or when a control owner fails to implement or maintain the required safeguards. These escalations must follow a documented path and be recorded for audit purposes. Similarly, if roles change due to team restructuring, project shifts, or personnel turnover, ownership must be reassigned to maintain continuity. If ownership is not updated after a change, the control or risk may become orphaned. On the exam, if a scenario describes an overdue treatment plan or a failed control, look for clues indicating that ownership was never escalated or reassigned after a transition. The correct answer will reflect the need for documentation and governance oversight in both reassignment and escalation.
Monitoring performance is essential to ensure that owners are fulfilling their responsibilities. This involves tracking whether risk treatment plans are progressing, whether control testing is completed, and whether open issues are being addressed. Dashboards and governance reports help flag items that are inactive, outdated, or overdue. Key performance indicators and key control indicators can measure ownership effectiveness, such as treatment completion rates, control failure trends, or average time to resolve issues. Monitoring is not micromanagement—it is assurance. CRISC professionals must support leadership visibility without interfering with operations. On the exam, performance monitoring often appears in questions about treatment delays or missed testing. Strong answers reflect governance maturity—monitoring systems that provide insight without disrupting normal workflows.
Assigning ownership comes with challenges, and CRISC professionals must be prepared to handle them. One challenge is resistance—individuals may avoid responsibility, especially if they feel under-resourced or lack clarity. Another challenge is role ambiguity, especially in shared or cross-functional environments where responsibilities are not clearly defined. Organizational changes, such as turnover or restructuring, can leave gaps in ownership. Finally, there may be a lack of training—individuals may not understand what it means to own a risk or a control. CRISC professionals must balance clear governance structures with practical application, ensuring that ownership is both enforceable and realistic. On the exam, when you see signs of delay, miscommunication, or neglected controls, the root cause may be one of these challenges. Strong answers show how to overcome these barriers through structure and clarity.
On the CRISC exam, questions involving accountability often ask who should be assigned to a specific risk. The correct answer usually depends on the risk type—business owners for strategic or process risks, IT managers for technical or system risks, and compliance leads for regulatory concerns. Another type of question may ask why a risk treatment was delayed, with the right answer pointing to a lack of assigned or acknowledged ownership. In some cases, you may be asked how the organization should respond to role confusion, and the answer will involve clarifying accountability through RACI definitions or documentation updates. You may also see a question about who monitors control performance, and the correct answer will be the control owner, with oversight from governance. The strongest exam answers reflect clear assignment, proper documentation, consistent communication, and readiness to escalate or reassign as needed.
Thanks for joining us for this episode of The Bare Metal Cyber CRISC Prepcast. For more episodes, tools, and study support, visit us at Baremetalcyber.com.