RISK-ACADEMY’S

GUIDE TO AI FOR
RISK MANAGEMENT
Structure of the guide
GenAI for Risk Management 3

Beyond Traditional Risk Management 4

Technique 1: Pre-Decision Analysis 4

Technique 2: Stress Testing Decisions 4

Advanced Prompting Techniques 5

The "Assumption Archaeology" Method 5

The "Historical Pattern Recognition" Approach 5
The "Competitive Intelligence" Framework 5
The "Pre-Mortem" Method 🔍 5
Executive Decision Checkpoints 5
Critical Success Factors 6

Latest Research in Prompting 7

"Gibberish" prompts outperform carefully crafted instructions 7
Emotional manipulation improves AI performance 7

Role prompting is largely ineffective for accuracy 7

Learning from mistakes outperforms learning from correct examples 7
Longer prompts often degrade performance 7
Automated prompt optimization crushes human experts 7

Metacognitive prompting frameworks enhance reasoning 7

Domain expertise emerges through prompting alone 7
Additional resources 8
Useful videos on the topic 9
Recommended reading 10
Contact the author 14
Legal disclaimer and copyright notice 15
GenAI for Risk Management
This guide will help you transform how your organization uses GenAI for risk management,
moving beyond superficial improvements to risk documentation toward genuine decision
support and quantitative risk analysis.
The Core Problem: Most organizations use GenAI to create prettier risk matrices and
dashboards - essentially polishing fundamentally flawed practices. This misses AI's
transformational potential for improving actual business decisions under uncertainty.
The Solution: The guide presents a systematic approach using GenAI for pre-decision
uncertainty analysis rather than post-decision documentation. It introduces five proven
techniques with specific prompts and examples:
1. Assumption Archaeology - Excavating hidden premises that could undermine decisions
2. Historical Pattern Recognition - Learning from similar failures across industries
3. Competitive Intelligence Framework - Modeling how uncertainty cascades through
competitive dynamics
4. Pre-Mortem Analysis - Working backwards from assumed failure to identify specific
risks
5. Executive Decision Checkpoints - Systematic review processes for ongoing decisions
Each technique includes ready-to-use prompts and real-world examples, such as analyzing
mining expansion decisions or product launches. The guide emphasizes quantitative analysis
over qualitative assessments and provides links to specialized AI tools for deeper analysis.
The guide will help produce measurable business value - lower insurance premiums, reduced
bad debt, fewer claims and operational losses - rather than just better-looking reports. It
emphasizes timing (analysing before committing resources), iteration (treating first responses
as starting points), and maintaining decision focus throughout the analysis.
Beyond Traditional Risk Management

Many risk managers already embraced GenAI and use it to enhance their existing risk
management process - generating quicker heat maps, colourful dashboards, and more details
risk descriptions and risk registers. While these improvements appear valuable on the
surface, they represent a fundamental misunderstanding of AI's transformative potential and
completely fail to deliver meaningful savings and value.
Organizations are essentially using powerful technology to polish fundamentally flawed
practices. Imagine strapping a Formula 1 engine to a car with square wheels, no steering
wheel, and a driver who's blindfolded. You've got incredible horsepower and cutting-edge
automotive technology, but you're still going to crash spectacularly because the fundamentals
are completely wrong.
A better alternative? Using GenAI for pre-decision uncertainty analysis: evaluating market
entry strategies, optimizing supplier contract terms, calculating contingencies, setting risk-
adjusted targets, or determining optimal inventory levels given demand variability and
associated risks. This requires AI to model and run scenarios, and quantify trade-offs - not
categorize risks as "high/medium/low."
Netflix used advanced data analytics and amazing engineers (pre-GenAI) to decide which
shows to produce, analysing viewer behaviour patterns and content preferences before
committing hundreds of millions. Today, GenAI can perform similar uncertainty analysis across
virtually any business decision in hours instead of months.
The ultimate measure of successful AI integration isn't the aesthetic quality of risk reporting,
but rather its influence on decision-making processes and performance. Does better risk
analysis lead to saving millions of dollars? Not hypothetical, but hard cash savings. Lower
insurance premiums, less bad debt, less claims and write offs, less contingency use, less FX
losses, just to name few examples risk managers can prove a positive ROI.

Technique 1: Pre-Decision Analysis

Most organizations conduct risk analysis after they've already committed to a decision path.
This backwards approach explains why traditional risk management fails to influence actual
business choices. The pre-decision framework reverses this sequence, forcing systematic
uncertainty analysis before resource allocation.
The framework operates through three targeted questions that expose cognitive blind spots:
1. "What could go wrong that would make this a poor decision?" This question
directly counters confirmation bias by forcing explicit consideration of failure modes
rather than seeking evidence to support predetermined choices. Research by Kaplan
and Strömberg (2003) on venture capital due diligence found that successful investors
spend 70% of their analysis time on potential failure scenarios rather than validating
optimistic projections.
 2. "What assumptions am I making that might prove incorrect?" This targets the
planning fallacy - the systematic tendency to underestimate costs, timeframes, and
risks while overestimating benefits. The question forces explicit articulation of implicit
assumptions, making them available for challenge and testing.
3. "What would I need to see happen for this to be successful?" This establishes
measurable success criteria and identifies critical path dependencies, creating
accountability mechanisms that prevent post-decision rationalization.

EXAMPLE: "I'm considering expanding our manufacturing operations to Southeast Asia

to reduce production costs by 20%. Before I proceed, analyse the key uncertainties that
could affect this decision's success. Structure your analysis around: 1) What could go
wrong that would make this a poor decision? 2) What assumptions am I making about
regional stability, supply chains, and labour markets that might prove incorrect? 3) What
would I need to see happen in terms of regulatory environment, infrastructure, and
market conditions for this expansion to be successful?

Try our dedicated Devil's Advocate AI agent for this:

[Link]

Technique 2: Stress Testing Decisions

Traditional scenario planning often becomes an academic exercise disconnected from actual
decisions. Effective scenario and stress testing focuses on decision robustness across
different environmental conditions rather than predicting specific futures.
Use GenAI to test your decision under three scenarios:
1. Base case where my key assumptions hold - The base case validates that your
decision logic holds under your primary assumptions.
2. Stress case where two critical assumptions fail - The stress case tests resilience
when two critical assumptions fail simultaneously - this mirrors how most strategic
failures actually occur through cascading assumption breakdowns rather than single-
point failures.
3. Extreme case where the operating environment fundamentally changes - The
extreme case forces consideration of fundamental environmental shifts that could
invalidate your entire decision framework. This scenario type proved crucial for
organizations that successfully navigated the 2008 financial crisis or COVID-19
disruptions - they had explicitly considered scenarios where their basic operating
assumptions no longer applied.

Each scenario should produce actionable insights: proceed as planned, modify the approach,
or abandon the decision entirely. Scenario analysis that doesn't influence the actual decision
represents sophisticated procrastination rather than decision support.

EXAMPLE: "Before testing my decision to launch a premium product line targeting

millennials, help me build a stochastic financial model with these uncertain variables:
customer acquisition cost (normal distribution, mean $100, std dev $30), market
penetration rate (triangular distribution, min 2%, most likely 5%, max 8%), average
selling price (normal distribution, mean $100, std dev $20), competitor response delay
(uniform distribution, 3-12 months), and marketing channel effectiveness (beta
distribution reflecting current performance ±40%). Create a Monte Carlo simulation with
10,000 iterations that I can adjust for three scenarios: base case (current assumption
distributions), stress case (shift key variables to 25th percentile performance), and
extreme case (fundamental market shift reduces all optimistic assumptions by 50%)."

"Using the stochastic model above, run three scenario analyses: 1) Base case
maintaining current assumption distributions, 2) Stress case where economic
uncertainty shifts customer acquisition cost to $130 mean and market penetration to 3%
most likely, with competitor response accelerated to 3-6 months, 3) Extreme case where
social media algorithm changes reduce marketing effectiveness by 60% and shift the
entire demand curve downward. For each scenario, show me the probability distribution
of 18-month NPV, break-even timeline, and market share capture. Provide specific
decision recommendations: proceed as planned, modify approach, or abandon initiative,
with supporting probability thresholds."

Try our dedicated Quant AI agent for this analysis: [Link]

Advanced Prompting Techniques

The "Assumption Archaeology" Method

Every business decision rests on a foundation of assumptions - beliefs about market
conditions, customer behaviour, operational capabilities, competitive responses, and
countless other factors. Yet these assumptions often remain invisible to decision-makers,
buried beneath layers of analysis and planning documents. When decisions fail, it's rarely
because of completely unforeseen "black swan" events. More often, it's because a critical
assumption that everyone took for granted turned out to be wrong.
The Assumption Archaeology method uses AI to systematically excavate these hidden
premises before they can undermine your decisions. Unlike traditional scenario planning that
focuses on external uncertainties, this technique forces you to examine the internal logic of
your decision. It's particularly powerful because assumptions often become more questionable
the longer they remain unexamined - what seemed obvious six months ago may look naïve in
hindsight.
This approach transforms AI from a simple information tool into a decision auditor. By explicitly
surfacing assumptions, you can evaluate whether your decision depends on beliefs that are
actually quite fragile. The method also creates a natural bridge to contingency planning, since
each identified assumption becomes a potential trigger for alternative strategies.

EXAMPLE: "I'm planning to expand our mining operations by 40% over the next 18
months, investing $250 million in new equipment and hiring 150 additional workers. List
the 5 most critical assumptions underlying this decision's success. For each
assumption, provide: 1) How likely it is to hold true over the next 24 months, 2) Early
warning signals if it's breaking down, 3) What I should do if this assumption proves
false."

The "Historical Pattern Recognition" Approach

Risk managers often fall into the trap of treating each decision as if it's happening in a
vacuum, missing the wealth of lessons embedded in business history. Yet patterns repeat
across industries, geographies, and time periods with startling consistency. The companies
that succeed are often those that learn from others' failures before making their own
decisions.
The Historical Pattern Recognition approach leverages AI's ability to rapidly analyse vast
amounts of historical data and identify recurring failure modes that human memory might miss
or dismiss as irrelevant. This technique is particularly valuable because it forces you to
confront uncomfortable truths: most "unprecedented" situations have actually happened
before in different contexts, and the same cognitive biases that led to past failures are likely
influencing your current decision.
What makes this approach powerful is that it shifts your perspective from "What could go
wrong?" to "What has already gone wrong in similar situations?" This subtle reframing often
reveals failure patterns that pure theoretical analysis would miss. It also provides concrete
evidence for stakeholders who might otherwise dismiss risk concerns as hypothetical.

EXAMPLE: "Find 3 historical examples where companies expanded operations in

emerging markets similar to our planned 40% expansion in X and failed. What were the
common failure patterns? How do these patterns apply to my specific situation of
investing $250 million in new equipment and hiring 150 additional workers? What would
I do differently to avoid these pitfalls?"

The "Competitive Intelligence" Framework

Strategic decisions rarely happen in isolation - your competitors are making their own moves
under the same uncertain conditions. Yet most risk analysis treats competitive dynamics as
static background noise rather than dynamic uncertainties that fundamentally shape
outcomes. This creates a dangerous blind spot where you optimize for scenarios that assume
competitors will remain passive observers.
The Competitive Intelligence Framework transforms AI into a strategic war room analyst,
forcing you to think through how uncertainty cascades through competitive dynamics. This
approach recognizes that your risk profile changes dramatically based on competitor
responses. A decision that looks prudent in isolation might become reckless if competitors
react aggressively, while a seemingly risky move might become brilliant if competitors
hesitate.
This technique is particularly powerful because it reveals second-order effects that traditional
risk analysis misses. The real question isn't just "What could go wrong with our decision?" but
"How do competitive responses to our decision change what could go wrong?" By modelling
these interactive uncertainties, you can identify strategic opportunities where others see only
risk—or avoid strategic traps where others see only opportunity.

EXAMPLE: "If I proceed with expanding our mining operations by 40% over the next 18
months and my top 3 competitors (Vale, Anglo American, and BHP) don't make similar
expansions, what advantages and vulnerabilities does this create? Conversely, if they
make similar moves and I don't, how does this affect my market position? Factor in the
key uncertainties we've identified around commodity prices, regulatory changes, and
infrastructure limitations."

The "Pre-Mortem" Method 🔍

Traditional risk analysis asks "What could go wrong?" but this approach often generates
generic concerns that feel hypothetical. Pre-mortem analysis flips the script by starting from
the assumption that failure has already occurred, then working backwards to understand how
it happened. This psychological shift is remarkably powerful - it bypasses our natural optimism
bias and forces us to confront specific failure mechanisms we might otherwise overlook.
Research by Gary Klein and others has shown that pre-mortem exercises can increase the
ability to identify problems by up to 30%. The technique works because imagining failure as a
fait accompli removes the emotional resistance to considering negative outcomes. Instead of
fighting against hope, you're conducting a forensic investigation into what "already happened."
This method is particularly effective for complex strategic decisions where multiple factors
must align for success. By imagining specific failure scenarios, you can identify critical
dependencies, design better contingency plans, and establish monitoring systems that
actually matter. The key is being ruthlessly specific about failure mechanisms rather than
settling for vague concerns.

The Setup Prompt: "Imagine it's December 2026 and my decision to expand our mining
operations by 40% over 18 months has failed spectacularly. Working backwards from
this failure, what are the 3 most likely sequences of events that led to this outcome? Be
specific about the failure mechanisms and timing."
The Learning Prompt: "Based on the failure scenarios you identified, what early warning
systems should I establish? What decision checkpoints should I build in? At what point
should I be prepared to reverse course?"

Executive Decision Checkpoints

Strategic decisions aren't one-time events - they're ongoing processes that require systematic
review and adjustment as circumstances evolve. Yet most organizations treat decisions as
permanent commitments, missing opportunities to course-correct when assumptions prove
wrong or conditions change.
​The Executive Decision Checkpoints technique creates structured moments to reassess
previous decisions using fresh information and hindsight.
This approach transforms decision-making from a static process into a dynamic capability. By
building regular decision audits into your management rhythm, you can identify when original
assumptions have shifted, recognize emerging risks that weren't visible initially, and adjust
strategy before small problems become major failures. Research by McKinsey shows that
companies with systematic decision review processes are 40% more likely to achieve their
strategic objectives compared to those that treat decisions as irreversible.
The power of this technique lies in its ability to overcome status quo bias and sunk cost fallacy
- two cognitive traps that keep executives locked into failing strategies. By explicitly
questioning past decisions with new data, you create permission to change course when
evidence suggests a different path would be more effective.
EXAMPLE: "I made the decision to expand our mining operations by 40% eighteen months
ago based on commodity price forecasts of $85/ton and regulatory stability assumptions.
Analyze what's changed since then. Are my original assumptions still valid? What new
information about environmental regulations, local community relations, and supply chain
disruptions suggests I should modify my approach? What would I decide differently if making
this choice today with current market conditions and geopolitical risks?"
Critical Success Factors
The difference between AI-powered risk theatre and genuinely better decisions lies in how you
apply these tools. Most organizations use AI to generate more sophisticated-looking risk
reports while making decisions the same way they always have. This misses the
transformational potential entirely.
Timing is everything
The cardinal rule of decision-centric risk management applies doubly to AI: analyse
uncertainty before you commit resources, not after. When Theranos raised $945 million,
sophisticated investors could have used AI to stress-test the fundamental assumptions about
blood testing technology. Instead, they relied on traditional due diligence that missed the core
technical impossibilities. AI shines when it forces you to examine your assumptions before
you're emotionally committed to a course of action.
Treat AI like a brilliant but inexperienced analyst
AI can process vast amounts of information and identify patterns humans miss, but it lacks
real-world experience with failure modes. When AI suggests that "regulatory approval risk is
moderate," push back: "What specific regulatory precedents support this assessment? Show
me three examples where similar technologies faced unexpected regulatory barriers." The
most valuable insights emerge when you force AI to justify its reasoning with concrete
evidence.
Iteration reveals hidden assumptions
Your first AI-generated risk analysis is never your best. Use initial outputs as starting points for
deeper investigation. If AI identifies "supply chain disruption" as a key risk, iterate: "What
specific failure modes could trigger this? How would each affect our timeline and budget?
What early warning indicators should we monitor?" Each iteration peels back another layer of
assumption, revealing risks that weren't immediately obvious.
Numbers trump narratives
Qualitative risk assessments—whether human or AI-generated—create the illusion of
precision while hiding critical uncertainties. Push AI toward quantification: "Instead of saying
'high probability,' give me a percentage range. Instead of 'significant impact,' show me the
dollar range and timeline." When Boeing developed the 737 MAX, qualitative assessments
suggested pilot training requirements were "manageable." Quantitative analysis would have
revealed the specific scenarios where pilots had insufficient time to respond to failures.
Every analysis must connect to a decision
The moment your AI-powered risk analysis becomes disconnected from specific choices, it
becomes compliance theater. Before engaging AI, clarify the decision you're making: "Should
we enter the market now or wait six months?" Then ensure every risk insight directly informs
that choice. If the analysis doesn't help you choose between concrete alternatives, you're
wasting time on documentation rather than decision support.
Latest Research in Prompting

Recent scientific research on AI prompting techniques has revealed several interesting

discoveries that challenge conventional wisdom. Based on analysis of over 1,500 academic
papers, controlled experiments, and industry studies from 2023-2025, these findings
demonstrate that many popular prompting beliefs are fundamentally incorrect.

"Gibberish" prompts outperform carefully crafted instructions

The Discovery: Research by Wang et al. (2025) found that pruning few-shot demonstrations
into seemingly incoherent "gibberish" consistently matches or surpasses state-of-the-art
automatic prompt optimization. This directly contradicts the assumption that well-structured,
clear instructions are always better.
Why It Works: The fragmented examples appear to activate pattern recognition in ways that
coherent examples cannot, forcing the model to focus on underlying structures rather than
surface-level content.
Implementation Example:
Instead of: "Please analyze this financial data and provide insights about market trends..."
Try: "Financial data analysis→trends insights: Revenue Q1 $2M↗Q2 $3M market
signals→conclusions"
Research Validation: Tested across multiple benchmarks with consistent improvements over
traditional crafted prompts.

Emotional manipulation improves AI performance

The Discovery: EmotionPrompt research demonstrates that adding emotional stimuli to
prompts significantly boosts performance across diverse tasks, with improvements ranging
from 8% to 115% depending on the benchmark.
Most Effective Emotional Phrases:
• "This is very important to my career" (20% improvement)
• "Take a deep breath and work on this problem step-by-step"
• "You'd better be sure"
• "I believe you are capable of doing this correctly"
Implementation Example:
Standard: "Solve this math problem: 23 × 47"
Enhanced: "This is very important to my career. Take a deep breath and solve this math
problem step-by-step: 23 × 47"
Research Validation: Tested across Instruction Induction, BIG-Bench, and human evaluation
studies with consistent performance gains.
Role prompting is largely ineffective for accuracy
The Shocking Truth: Comprehensive analysis by Schulhoff et al. (2025) revealed that role
prompting ("You are a math professor...") has minimal impact on correctness, contradicting
one of the most popular prompting techniques.
What Actually Works Instead:
• Context provision (highly impactful)
• Specific domain knowledge inclusion
• Decomposition techniques
• Self-criticism frameworks
Implementation Example:
Instead of: "You are a legal expert. Analyze this contract."
Use: "Given that employment contracts typically include termination clauses, non-compete
agreements, and compensation structures, analyze this contract for potential issues: [contract
text]"
Research Validation: Multi-model testing across GPT-4, Claude, and others confirmed role
prompts don't improve factual accuracy.

Learning from mistakes outperforms learning from correct

examples
The LEAP Method: "Learning from Mistakes" research shows that intentionally inducing model
errors and letting the AI reflect on them produces superior results compared to traditional few-
shot learning with correct examples.
Performance Gains:
• 7.5% improvement on DROP reading comprehension
• 3.3% improvement on HotpotQA using GPT-4
• Consistent gains across reasoning tasks
Implementation Example:
First, attempt this problem: [problem]
[Let model make mistake]

Now reflect: What went wrong in your approach?

[Model identifies errors]

Apply these lessons to solve: [similar problem]​

Research Validation: Validated across multiple reasoning benchmarks with statistically
significant improvements.
Longer prompts often degrade performance
The Length Paradox: Counter to intuition, research shows that longer prompts frequently
reduce LLM performance, with degradation beginning around 3,000 tokens—well before
technical context limits.
The Mechanism: Information overload impairs the model's ability to prioritize relevant
information, similar to cognitive load theory in humans.
Optimal Strategy:
• Use structured decomposition instead of lengthy single prompts
• Implement prompt chaining for complex tasks
• Focus on information density rather than comprehensive detail
Implementation Example:
Instead of one 5,000-word prompt covering everything, use:
Prompt 1: Extract key information →
Prompt 2: Analyze patterns in extracted data →
Prompt 3: Generate recommendations based on analysis
Research Validation: Demonstrated across multiple models and task types with consistent
performance degradation patterns.

Automated prompt optimization crushes human experts

The Humbling Reality: Microsoft Research demonstrated that AI-generated prompts
significantly outperformed 20 hours of expert human prompt engineering, accomplishing
superior results in just 10 minutes.
Key Findings:
• DSPy framework achieved better F1 scores than manual optimization
• PromptWizard reached state-of-the-art with only 69 API calls vs competitors' 1,730-
18,600
• Joint optimization of instructions and examples beats separate optimization
Implementation Approach:
Use automated tools like DSPy, PromptWizard, or Anthropic's Prompt Improver rather than
manual prompt crafting for production systems.
Research Validation: Replicated across multiple benchmarks with consistent superiority of
automated approaches.

Metacognitive prompting frameworks enhance reasoning

The Five-Stage Method: Wang & Zhao (2024) developed a metacognitive prompting
framework that mirrors human introspective reasoning, showing consistent 2.8-6.4%
improvements over standard Chain-of-Thought.
The Framework:
1. Understanding: Interpret the input and context
2. Preliminary Judgment: Form initial assessment
3. Critical Evaluation: Challenge the initial judgment
4. Final Decision: Conclude with reasoning explanation
5. Confidence Assessment: Rate certainty (0-100%)
Implementation Example:
Step 1 - Understanding: What is this problem asking me to determine?
Step 2 - Preliminary Judgment: Based on initial analysis, I think...
Step 3 - Critical Evaluation: Let me challenge this assumption because...
Step 4 - Final Decision: Considering all factors, my conclusion is...
Step 5 - Confidence: I am 85% confident in this answer because...
Research Validation: Tested across 10 natural language understanding datasets with
consistent improvements.

Domain expertise emerges through prompting alone

The Microsoft MedPrompt Breakthrough: GPT-4 with advanced prompting strategies achieved
90.2% accuracy on medical examinations, surpassing Med-PaLM 2 (86.5%) - a model
specifically fine-tuned for medicine - without any domain-specific training.
The Surprising Method:
• kNN few-shot selection: Choose examples similar to the test case
• GPT-4 generated Chain-of-Thought: Let the model create reasoning chains
• Choice shuffling ensemble: Randomize answer order across multiple calls
Cross-Domain Validation: The identical strategy worked across electrical engineering,
machine learning, philosophy, accounting, law, and psychology without modifications.
Implementation Framework:
For domain X task:
1. Use kNN to select most similar examples from training set
2. Generate chain-of-thought reasoning for each example
3. Run multiple inference calls with shuffled answer choices
4. Ensemble the results for final prediction
Research Validation: 27% error reduction compared to specialized models across nine
medical datasets.
Additional resources

Deep dive into advanced risk

management using this online
course
This course gives guidance, motivation, critical
information, and practical case studies to move beyond
traditional risk governance, helping ensure risk
management is not a stand-alone process but a change
driver for business.
​
​[Link]
​

Make your business plans and

budgets risk based with
ChanceCalc Monte Carlo
​
​ChanceCalc is a revolutionary Excel add-in that performs
the arithmetic of uncertainty using the same keystrokes as
​ those for numerical calculations. This cures the Flaw of
Averages, a set of systematic errors that occur when
uncertain forecasts are replaced by single “average”
numbers.
​
​[Link]
Useful videos on the topic
Recommended reading
Risk appetite refers to an individual or
organization’s willingness to take on risks in
pursuit of potential returns. It is an important
consideration for businesses, as it can determine
the types of investments and strategic decisions
they make. A high risk appetite may lead to a
focus on high-growth, speculative investments,
while a low risk appetite may result in a
preference for more conservative, steady returns.
It is important for businesses to carefully assess
and manage their risk appetite in order to make
informed decisions and achieve their financial
goals.

Download the full guide to read about

documenting risk appetite, reviewing risk appetite,
case studies and examples and addition video
resources: Guide to risk appetite 2023​

Attention all risk management professionals! We

are proud to announce the publication of our
comprehensive guide to compliance risk
management. This guide covers the latest
industry best practices and provides practical
advice for managing compliance risks in your
organization. Whether you are new to the field or
an experienced professional, this guide is
designed to help you effectively identify, assess,
and mitigate compliance risks.

Get your copy today and stay ahead of the game

in the ever-evolving world of compliance risk
management. [Link]
academys-guide-on-compliance-risk-in-non-
financial-companies-free-download/​
This guide is designed to assist non-financial
organisations in developing and using risk
registers to support important business decisions.
The premise of the guide is that risk registers
should be used less frequently than is considered
normal in the industry and the format of the risk
register should be very different to what is
believed to be best practice.
[Link]
risk-registers/​

In this guide, we will delve deep into the

multifaceted world of risk culture, providing you
with valuable insights and practical steps to foster
a robust risk culture within your organization.

We will share case studies from a diverse range

of industries, allowing you to learn from the
successes and challenges faced by other
organizations in their quest to develop a strong
risk culture. Simple, practical steps, trialed and
tested by the RISK-ACADEMY team.

[Link]
risk-culture/​
We are proud to announce the release of a
comprehensive guide for alternative risk
management in Public-Private Partnership (PPP)
projects. Developed in collaboration with Alex
Belkov, a globally recognized specialist in risk
analysis for large infrastructure projects, this
guide provides a step-by-step approach to
incorporating risk analysis into the planning
process of a PPP project.

[Link]
risk-management-in-government-projects/​

Our comprehensive guide provides an in-depth

understanding of the ISO31000:2018 standard,
including its key principles and requirements. It
also includes practical advice and best practices
for integrating risk management into an
organization’s decision-making processes and
culture.

[Link]
academys-guide-on-iso310002018/​
Introducing the RISK-ACADEMY’s Ultimate Guide
to Risk Management Implementation! Our
comprehensive guide covers everything from
integrating risk management into decision-making
processes to building a risk-aware culture within
your organization.

[Link]
academys-guide-to-risk-management-
implementation/​

RISK-ACADEMY‘s Auditing Risk

Management Guide, a comprehensive resource
designed to help organizations assess and
improve the effectiveness of their risk
management practices. In today’s complex and
uncertain business environment, effective risk
management is more important than ever. As
such, this guide aims to provide practical insights
and recommendations for evaluating and
enhancing your organization’s risk
management efforts.

[Link]
academys-auditing-risk-management-guide/​
Contact the author

ALEX SIDORENKO, [Link], CT31000, CTA31000

‌
Alex Sidorenko is an expert with over 16 years of risk
management experience in private equity, sovereign funds,
investment authorities and venture capital firms across Australia,
CIS, GCC.
​
Successfully implemented changes to quantitative risk analysis,
risk-based decision making and neuroscience as a CRO at
Book a free no EuroChem (global fertilizer $10B) and RUSNANO (private equity
obligations call fund $3B).
with Alex
Saved more than $13 million per year in premiums on cargo,
liability and PD/BI insurance through industry leading
quantitative risk analysis without changing deductibles and while
doubling the limits.

Successfully defending corporate risk profile at the Ministry of

finance and securing more than $1B in extra funding.

Author of the most popular free risk management book in the

world, more than 200K downloads in 3 languages.

Risk manager of the year, FERMA, 2021, Honourable mention

2021, RIMS, Risk manager of the year, RUSRISK, 2014, Best
ERM Implementation, RUSRISK, 2014, Best risk management
training, RUSRISK, 2013, 2014, 2015, finalist in risk
management awards in 2018 and 2019.
‌
Since 2012 Alex runs RISK-ACADEMY, a highly successful
company, focused on providing risk management integration
services, risk modeling, training and auditing to private equity
firms (direct investment and funds) as well as sovereign wealth
funds. Alex’s specialization is risk management integration, risk-
based investment decision making, value creation and asset
management.

​
Legal disclaimer and copyright notice
The information contained in this guide is for general informational purposes only and is not
intended as legal or professional advice. The guide is provided by RISK-ACADEMY and while
we endeavor to keep the information up-to-date and correct, we make no representations or
warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability,
suitability or availability with respect to the guide or the information, products, services, or
related graphics contained in the guide for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such
information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

In no event will we be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or
consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or
profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this guide.

Through this guide, you may be able to access other websites and resources provided by
third parties. RISK-ACADEMY has no control over the content of these sites or resources and
assumes no responsibility for them or for any loss or damage that may arise from your use of
them.

RISK-ACADEMY reserves the right to make changes to this guide at any time without prior
notice.

The information, content and format contained in this guide is protected by copyright.
Reproduction of any part of this guide, in any form or by any means, without the express
written permission of RISK-ACADEMY is strictly prohibited. The guide is for personal use only
and may not be used for commercial purposes or be distributed for profit.

By accessing and using this guide, you acknowledge and agree to the above Legal Disclaimer
and Copyright Notice.