Risk Management isn’t just another checkbox; it’s the compass that guides everything from strategy to operational security. Whether advising a growing SME or a large enterprise, selecting the right risk management methodology is critical for building a resilient security posture. With regulatory pressures mounting and threat landscapes evolving, understanding the core methodologies is essential.
Let’s walk through the most widely used risk management methodologies, their characteristics, advantages, and limitations and ultimately assess which offers the most practical value in today’s cyber risk climate.
1. ISO/IEC 27005
Overview:
ISO/IEC 27005 is the dedicated risk management framework within the broader ISO 27000 family of information security standards. It provides guidelines to support the implementation of ISO/IEC 27001, focusing heavily on asset-based risk assessment.
Core Steps:
- Context establishment
- Risk identification
- Risk analysis
- Risk evaluation
- Risk treatment
- Risk acceptance and monitoring
Workflow:
[Identify Assets] → [Identify Threats] → [Assess Vulnerabilities] → [Estimate Risk] → [Treat Risk] → [Monitor & Review]Strengths:
- Integrates tightly with ISO 27001
- Emphasises continuous improvement (PDCA cycle)
- Globally recognised
Limitations:
- Can be resource-heavy to implement fully
- Requires organisational buy-in for continuous operation
Best For: Organisations pursuing ISO 27001 certification or needing formal governance frameworks.
2. NIST Risk Management Framework (RMF)
Overview:
NIST’s RMF is widely adopted by U.S. federal agencies and contractors, but is increasingly used internationally. It’s highly structured and ties risk to systems and controls.
Core Steps (as of NIST SP 800-37 Rev 2):
- Prepare
- Categorise
- Select
- Implement
- Assess
- Authorise
- Monitor
Workflow:
[Prepare] → [Categorise] → [Select Controls] → [Implement] → [Assess] → [Authorise] → [Monitor Continuously]Strengths:
- Very comprehensive and granular
- Maps directly to NIST 800-53 and CSF
- Supports continuous monitoring
Limitations:
- Can be overwhelming for SMEs
- Requires significant technical maturity
Best For: Highly regulated industries (e.g. defence, healthcare) or organisations aligned to U.S. government frameworks.
3. OCTAVE (Operationally Critical Threat, Asset, and Vulnerability Evaluation)
Overview:
Developed by Carnegie Mellon University, OCTAVE focuses on organisational risk tolerance and operational context rather than solely technical risks.
Phases:
- Build asset-based threat profiles
- Identify infrastructure vulnerabilities
- Develop security strategy and mitigation plans
Workflow:
[Org View] + [Tech View] → [Risk Analysis] → [Mitigation Strategy]Strengths:
- Strong emphasis on organisational context
- Encourages cross-functional involvement
- Prioritises risk over vulnerabilities
Limitations:
- May lack technical depth
- Less suited for real-time risk assessment
Best For: Medium to large organisations needing a business-aligned perspective on cyber risk.
4. FAIR (Factor Analysis of Information Risk)
Overview:
FAIR is a quantitative risk analysis methodology that models the probable frequency and magnitude of cyber events in monetary terms.
Key Elements:
- Risk = Frequency x Impact
- Emphasis on probabilistic modelling
- Focus on business decision-making
Workflow:
[Threat Event Frequency] x [Loss Magnitude] = [Risk Exposure (in £/$)]Strengths:
- Provides tangible metrics (financial risk)
- Excellent for board-level reporting
- Encourages evidence-based decision making
Limitations:
- Requires data and modelling skills
- Tools and training may carry cost
Best For: Large enterprises and financial services looking to align risk to financial outcomes.
5. ISO 31000
Overview:
ISO 31000 is a broader enterprise risk management (ERM) framework that can be applied to any type of risk including cyber. It provides a principles-based approach rather than a prescriptive one.
Core Principles:
- Integration into governance
- Structured and comprehensive
- Customisable to context
- Inclusive and dynamic
Workflow:
[Establish Context] → [Identify Risks] → [Analyse Risks] → [Evaluate Risks] → [Treat Risks]
↓ ↑
[Monitor & Review] ←—— [Communicate & Consult]Strengths:
- Adaptable to all types of risk
- Supports a risk-aware culture
- Aligns with strategic objectives
Limitations:
- Not cybersecurity-specific
- May require translation into cyber terms
Best For: Enterprises looking for holistic risk management, including but not limited to IT/cybersecurity.
6. Risk Bow-Tie Methodology
Overview:
A visual risk assessment method that illustrates the cause, event, and consequences of a risk scenario. Used to map out complex risk chains and controls.
Workflow:
Threats → [Top Event] → Consequences
↘ Controls ↙ ↘ Mitigations ↙Strengths:
- Excellent for visualising risk paths
- Helps identify gaps in controls
- Good communication tool for execs
Limitations:
- More of a modelling technique than full framework
- Subjective without data input
Best For: Engineering, ICS, and OT environments where incident chains need to be visualised.
7. CIS Risk Assessment Method
Overview:
The Center for Internet Security (CIS) offers a streamlined, control-based risk assessment focusing on practical cybersecurity hygiene.
Key Aspects:
- Uses the CIS Controls as a baseline
- Prioritises implementation based on threat context
- Scaled for organisations of all sizes
Workflow:
[Identify Assets] + [Apply Controls] → [Risk Reduction Scorecard]Strengths:
- Very accessible and prescriptive
- Aligns with known best practices
- Low-cost to implement
Limitations:
- Not as flexible or customisable
- More focused on control implementation than full risk quantification
Best For: SMEs or IT teams seeking tactical cyber risk reduction.
Conclusion: Which Performs Best?
There is no “one size fits all” when it comes to risk management frameworks. Each methodology serves a different organisational need and maturity level. But from a practical, consultant-led perspective:
| Methodology | Best For | Consultant Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| ISO/IEC 27005 | Certification-driven firms | Excellent for governance-heavy environments |
| NIST RMF | Government/regulatory-heavy sectors | Highly detailed, great for compliance |
| OCTAVE | Risk-aware medium to large orgs | Business-aligned, but not deeply technical |
| FAIR | Financial modelling of cyber risk | Best quantitative method, but resource-intensive |
| ISO 31000 | Enterprise-wide risk strategy | Strategic alignment, needs cyber adaptation |
| Bow-Tie | Incident-rich or visual-centric organisations | Great add-on tool, not standalone |
| CIS Controls | SMEs and IT ops teams | Practical and easy to adopt |
🏆 Top Recommendation
FAIR + ISO/IEC 27005
Combining FAIR (for quantification) with ISO/IEC 27005 (for structure) provides a highly actionable, defensible, and business-aligned approach. FAIR gives stakeholders meaningful metrics, while ISO 27005 ensures continuous improvement and structured implementation.
Final Thoughts
Risk management isn’t just about ticking boxes it’s about making informed, defensible decisions. As a cybersecurity consultant, I’ve seen frameworks succeed or fail based not on their theoretical strengths, but on how well they align with the culture, capacity, and capability of the organisation.
Choose the methodology that not only fits your current landscape, but evolves with your business.