[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-239701-105":53,"doc-detail-239701-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","risk-framework-review-gap-analysis-and-recommendations-march-20-2018","Risk Framework Review Gap Analysis and Recommendations - March 20, 2018","","Risk Framework Review Gap Analysis and Recommendations (March 20, 2018) presents a four-step external review of the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) Secretariat’s Risk Management Framework. The work covers document review, leadership and risk-function interviews, benchmarking against comparable organizations, and synthesis of market practices to identify gaps, inefficiencies, and recommended initiatives. Findings are structured according to an Enterprise Risk Management framework, including governance, strategy, processes, and systems supporting risk mitigation and monitoring.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":51,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/general/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/risk-framework-review-gap-analysis-and-recommendations-march-20-2018/239701/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/risk-framework-review-gap-analysis-and-recommendations-march-20-2018/239701.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Angel","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-20","2026-09-11",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":76},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What was the primary purpose of the risk framework review for GPE?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The review aimed to assess gaps in GPE Secretariat risk policies and practices, benchmark them against comparable organizations, and provide recommendations and concrete solutions to improve risk assessment and monitoring of risk mitigation actions.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"How did the review team conduct the gap analysis?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"The work was completed in four steps: benchmarking, current state assessment, foundation setting, and recommendations plus a roadmap. It included document review, interviews across leadership and risk functions, development of an assessment framework, and synthesis of market practices.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What framework dimensions guided the structuring of findings?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"Results were organized along typical Enterprise Risk Management Framework components: governance, strategy, risk processes, and systems and infrastructure supporting the ERM framework.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},239701,1789152147,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":50,"category_name":51,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":76,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":125,"read_time":140},687207412472,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","RISK FRAMEWORK REVIEW GAP ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  \nMARCH 20, 2018  \n© Oliver Wyman  \nCONFIDENTIALITY Our clients’ industries are extremely competitive, and the maintenance of confidentiality with respect to our clients’ plans and  \ndata is critical. Oliver Wyman rigorously applies internal confidentiality practices to protect the confidentiality of all client information.  \nSimilarly, our industry is very competitive. We view our approaches and insights as proprietary and therefore look to our clients to protect our interests in our proposals, presentations, methodologies and analytical techniques. Under no circumstances should this material be shared with any third party without the prior written consent of Oliver Wyman.  \n© Oliver Wyman  \n1  Project objectives, scope & approach  \nThe Global Partnership of Education brought in Oliver Wyman to perform an external review of its Risk Management Framework  \nProject objectives  \n• The Secretariat of the Global Partnership of Education engaged Oliver Wyman to review its risk policies and practices with a view to identifying gaps and areas for improvement  \n• The key objectives for this work were to  \n– Review current GPE Secretariat risk policies and practices to assess gaps and areas for improvement  \n– Benchmark current GPE Secretariat risk policies and practices against policies and practices of other comparable organizations  \n– Make recommendations and propose concrete solutions to help the GPE Secretariat improve its risk assessment methodologies and monitoring of risk mitigation actions  \n• The core engagement took place over a four week period in February and March of 2018  \n© Oliver Wyman 3  \nThe project was completed in four steps  \nBenchmarking  \nCurrent State Assessment  \nFoundation  \nsetting  \nRecommendations and Roadmap  \n• Initial review of GPE policy documentation and reporting, covering all documents and reports identified in the GPE RFP  \n• Interviews with selected members of senior leadership and risk management function  \n• Development of a review framework and assessment dimensions  \n• High level articulation of GPE risk management goals and objectives  \n• Preparation and delivery of the inception report to GPE  \n• Detailed review of GPE framework/policy documentation and reporting and historical performance  \n• Additional interviews with selected members of senior leadership, GPE committees, Grant Agents, and risk management function, as well as selected staff likely to be impacted by risk management policies  \n• Evaluation of GPE current state, highlighting where current policies and practices do not support risk management objectives and/or impose inefficiencies on the organization  \n• Identification and agreement of target benchmarking organizations  \n• Outreach and interviews of benchmarking targets  \n• Synthesis of market practices, highlighting both‘standard” best practicesand also specific practices of potential interest to and applicability at GPE  \n• Identification of key gaps between GPE current practices and either GPE desired practices/target state or market best practices  \n• Identification and evaluation of possible tactics for addressing these gaps based on costs, implementation difficulty, and downside risks  \n• Development of high-level implementation plan defining recommended initiatives and timing  \n• Preparation of diagnostic report, including recommendations  \n© Oliver Wyman 4  \nThe analysis and detailed findings are structured along the dimensions of a typical Enterprise Risk Management Framework  \nKey components of an Enterprise Risk Management Framework  \n2. Strategy  \n3. Processes   \nRisk Category C  \nRisk Category B  \nRisk Category A (e.g. Operational Risk)  \nC Caonndtromiltigation D Monitoringand reporting  \nA iRdiskentification  B Rasisskessment   \n4. Systems and Infrastructure  \n1  \nGovernance: Oversight structure, risk ownership, roles and responsibilities, risk appetite and culture  \n\n| 2 Strategy: Risk management\u003Cbr>incorp","cbCaiolMBOwPfkn5","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiolMBOwPfkn5","pdf",907913,75,"English","# Project objectives, scope & approach\n## Project objectives\n## Project steps and methodology\n# Key ERM framework components\n## Governance\n## Strategy\n## Risk processes\n## Systems and infrastructure\n# Sources used to review GPE’s risk landscape\n## Documents reviewed\n## Interviews conducted\n## Analogue discussions\n# Report structure","[{\"question\":\"What was the primary purpose of the risk framework review for GPE?\",\"answer\":\"The review aimed to assess gaps in GPE Secretariat risk policies and practices, benchmark them against comparable organizations, and provide recommendations and concrete solutions to improve risk assessment and monitoring of risk mitigation actions.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the review team conduct the gap analysis?\",\"answer\":\"The work was completed in four steps: benchmarking, current state assessment, foundation setting, and recommendations plus a roadmap. It included document review, interviews across leadership and risk functions, development of an assessment framework, and synthesis of market practices.\"},{\"question\":\"What framework dimensions guided the structuring of findings?\",\"answer\":\"Results were organized along typical Enterprise Risk Management Framework components: governance, strategy, risk processes, and systems and infrastructure supporting the ERM framework.\"}]","Risk Framework Review Gap Analysis and Recommendations - March 20, 2018 | PDF",26]