Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Management and Operations
Tuesday 10 April 2012Posted by
Crystal
0 Comments
AS/NZS 4360:2004: Risk Management describes how the objectives of analysis are to separate acceptable risks from major risks. Risk analysis involves the consideration of the sources of risk, their consequences and the likelihood that those consequences may occur.
Consequence
AS/NZS 31000:2009 Risk Management describes that it is important to recognise that the consequences of any particular risk event may impact in different ways at different levels. Financial costs, personal harm (physical and psychological), legal consequences and damage to reputation may all result from a single incident.
Table 1 shows the AS/NZS 31000:2009 Risk Management descriptors for consequence:
| Level | Descriptor | Description |
| 1 | Minimal | < $2000 (< $1000): Isolated brief coverage, single media outlet: Stakeholders experience minimal disadvantage (days): Process breakdown or inefficiencies that have a limited impact on the achievement of an objective: Minor injury requiring first aid only |
| 2 | Minor | $2,000 – $50,000 (< $10,000): Minor negative coverage, limited circulation for one day: Minority of stakeholders experience disadvantage (days - weeks): Process breakdown that impedes the achievement of one or more objectives or some inefficiencies in key processes: Minor injuries requiring medical attention |
| 3 | Moderate | $50,000 - $5,000,000 (< $50,000): Negative coverage lasting for several days, and/or frequent reoccurrence for several weeks: Multiple stakeholders experience significant disadvantage (weeks): Process breakdown that impedes the achievement of an important objective or causes extensive inefficiencies in key processes: Multiple casualties requiring hospital attention |
| 4 | Major | $5,000,000 - $100,000,000 (< $5,000,000): Negative significant coverage, appearing consistently over weeks Multiple stakeholders severely disadvantaged (weeks - months): Serious process breakdown that substantially impedes the achievement of a core objective: Multiple severe injuries, or a single fatality |
| 5 | Catastrophic | > $100,000,000 (> $5,000,000): Extreme negative coverage causing public outcry appearing consistently over weeks Majority of stakeholders severely disadvantaged (months): Serious process breakdown that prevents the achievement of mission critical objectives: Multiple severe injuries, including fatalities |
Likelihood
Table 2 shows the AS/NZS 31000:2009 Risk Management descriptors for likelihood:
| Level | Descriptor | Description |
| A (=5) | Almost Certain | Over 99% probability or ‘happens often’, or could occur within ‘days to weeks’ |
| B (=4) | Likely | >50% probability or ‘could easily happen’, or could occur within ‘weeks to months’ |
| C (=3) | Possible | >10% probability or ‘could happen, has occurred before’, or could occur within ‘a year or so’ |
| D (=2) | Unlikely | >1% probability or ‘has not happened yet, but could’, or could occur ‘after several years’ |
| E (=1) | Rare | <1% probability or ‘conceivable but only in extreme circumstances’: exceptionally unlikely, even in the long term future or a ‘100 year event’ or greater |
Qualifying the risk
Table 3 shows the AS/NZS 31000:2009 Risk Management qualitative risk analysis matrix for level of risk.
| Likelihood | Consequences | ||||
| Insignificant 1 | Minor 2 | Moderate 3 | Major 4 | Catastrophic 5 | |
| A - Almost Certain | High | High | High | Extreme | Extreme |
| B - Likely | Moderate | High | High | Extreme | Extreme |
| C - Possible | Low | Moderate | High | High | Extreme |
| D - Unlikely | Low | Low | Moderate | High | Extreme |
| E - Rare | Low | Low | Low | Moderate | High |
Legend
Extreme risk: immediate action required High risk: senior management attention needed
Moderate risk: management responsibility must be specified Low risk: managed by routine procedures.
1.1. CAMERA RISK ASSESSMENT - Camera Number(s) / Location(s)
| Key security risks | Comment on the risk or give an example to clarify the risk | Existing controls presently in place to mitigate against the risk | Adequacy of existing controls, use excellent =1 generally adequate =3 inadequate =5, none=7 | Likelihood use 5 = Almost Certain 4= Likely 3 = Possible 2 = Unlikely 1 = Rare | Consequence use 5 = Catastrophic 4 = Major 3 = Moderate 2 = Minor 1 = Minimal | Likelihood x Consequence | Risk rating | Treatments proposed, indicate treatment, person responsible, due date, review process |
| Burglary | | | | | | | | |
| Violence / Assaults | | | | | | | | |
| Stealing Offences | | | | | | | | |
This preliminary camera risk evaluation, as shown in Table 4 is formulated as a guide only. The identified risks should be ranked based on available information and opinion by the CITY NAME. A crime and CCTV risk workshop is recommended annually to accurately evaluate and rank risks in line with current crime prevention strategy and objectives. Crime risks should be rated in accordance with the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan priorities.
CAMERA RISK ASSESSMENT - Camera Number(s) / Location(s) (CONTINUED)
| Key security risks | Comment on the risk or give an example to clarify the risk | Existing controls presently in place to mitigate against the risk | Adequacy of existing controls, use excellent =1 generally adequate =3 inadequate =5, none=7 | Likelihood use 5 = Almost Certain 4= Likely 3 = Possible 2 = Unlikely 1 = Rare | Consequence use 5 = Catastrophic 4 = Major 3 = Moderate 2 = Minor 1 = Minimal | Likelihood x Consequence | Risk rating | Treatments proposed, indicate treatment, person responsible, due date, review process |
| Robbery (Stealing with Violence) | | | | | | | | |
| Anti-Social Behaviour | | | | | | | | |
| Vandalism/Criminal Damage | | | | | | | | |
| Sexual Offences | | | | | | | | |
CRIME RISK ASSESSMENT - Camera Number(s) / Location(s) (CONTINUED)
| Key security risks | Comment on the risk or give an example to clarify the risk | Existing controls presently in place to mitigate against the risk | Adequacy of existing controls, use excellent =1 generally adequate =3 inadequate =5, none=7 | Likelihood use 5 = Almost Certain 4= Likely 3 = Possible 2 = Unlikely 1 = Rare | Consequence use 5 = Catastrophic 4 = Major 3 = Moderate 2 = Minor 1 = Minimal | Likelihood x Consequence | Risk rating | Treatments proposed, indicate treatment, person responsible, due date, review process |
| Motor vehicle theft/break in/damage | | | | | | | | |
| Vehicle Driving Offences | | | | | | | | |
| Drug related offences | | | | | | | |
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
