PECB : ISO-31000-Lead-Risk-Manager Questions & Answers

What is one of the limitations of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) technique?

• A. It can produce overly qualitative results, making it difficult to rank risks by severity or probability.
• B. It ignores the consequences of failures.
• C. It cannot be applied to technical systems and is mainly suitable for administrative processes.
• D. It can only be used to identify single failure modes and can become time-consuming and complex for multi-layered systems.

In the context of risk management, which statement below regarding events is correct?

• A. An event cannot be a risk source
• B. An event always has a single cause
• C. An event can consist of something not happening
• D. An event can have only one occurrence

Scenario 1:
Gospeed Ltd. is a trucking and logistics company headquartered in Birmingham, UK, specializing in domestic and EU road haulage. Operating a fleet of 25 trucks for both heavy loads and express deliveries, it provides transport services for packaged goods, textiles, iron, and steel. Recently, the company has faced challenges, including stricter EU regulations, customs delays, driver shortages, and supply chain disruptions. Most critically, limited and unreliable information has created uncertainty in anticipating delays, equipment failures, or regulatory changes, complicating decision-making.
To address these issues and strengthen resilience, Gospeed's top management decided to implement a risk management framework and apply a risk management process aligned with ISO 31000 guidelines. Considering the importance of stakeholders' perspectives when initiating the implementation of the risk management framework, top management brought together all relevant stakeholders to evaluate potential risks and ensure alignment of risk management efforts with the company's strategic objectives. The top management outlined the general level and types of risks it was prepared to take to pursue opportunities, while also clarifying which risks would not be acceptable under any circumstances. They accepted moderate financial risks, such as fuel price fluctuations or minor delays, but ruled out compromising safety or breaching regulations.
As part of the risk management process, the company moved from setting its overall direction to a closer examination of potential exposures, ensuring that identified risks were systematically analyzed, evaluated, and treated. Top management examined the main operational factors that significantly influence the likelihood and impact of risks. This analysis highlighted concerns related to supply chain disruptions, technological failures, and human errors.
Additionally, Gospeed's top management identified several external risks beyond their control, including interest rate changes, currency fluctuations, inflation trends, and new regulatory requirements. Consequently, top management agreed to adopt practical strategies to protect the company's financial stability and operations, including hedging against interest rate fluctuations, monitoring inflation, and ensuring compliance through staff training sessions.
However, other challenges emerged when top management pushed forward with a new contract for international deliveries without fully considering risk implications at the planning stage. Operational staff raised concerns about unreliable customs data and potential delays, but their input was overlooked in the rush to secure the deal. This resulted in delivery setbacks and financial penalties, revealing weaknesses in how risks were incorporated into day-to-day decision-making.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
Which risk management principle did Gospeed's top management violate, resulting in delivery delays and financial penalties? Refer to Scenario 1.

• A. Continual improvement
• B. Dynamic
• C. Integration
• D. Inclusive

Scenario 4:
Headquartered in Barcelona, Spain, Solenco Energy is a renewable energy provider that operates several solar and wind farms across southern Europe. After experiencing periodic equipment failures and supplier delays that affected energy output, the company initiated a risk assessment in line with ISO 31000 to ensure organizational resilience, minimize disruptions, and support long-term performance.
A cross-functional risk team was assembled, including representatives from engineering, finance, operations, and logistics. The team began a structured and systematic review of the energy production process to identify potential deviations from intended operating conditions and assess their possible causes and consequences. Using guided discussions with prompts such as "too high," "too low," or "other than expected," they explored how variations in system behavior could lead to operational disruptions or safety risks.
One risk identified was the failure of the main power inverter system at one of the company's key solar facilities-a single point of failure with high production dependence. To better understand this risk, the team used a structured visual technique that mapped the causes leading up to the inverter failure on one side and the potential consequences on the other. It also illustrated the controls that could prevent or mitigate both sides.
During discussions, several team members were inclined to focus on positive evidence supporting the belief that the inverter was reliable, while giving less consideration to contradictory data from maintenance reports. Differing viewpoints were not immediately discussed, as many participants felt more confident agreeing with the general group view that the likelihood of failure was low. It was only after a detailed review of supplier reports that the team revisited their assumptions and adjusted the analysis accordingly.
Ultimately, the likelihood of failure was determined to be "possible" based on annual system monitoring and maintenance records. However, the consequences were potentially severe, including an estimated €450,000 in lost revenue per week of downtime, contract penalties, and negative stakeholder perceptions. The team assumed a potential downtime of two weeks per failure, resulting in a total potential loss of €900,000 per event.
To better quantify the financial exposure to this risk, the team multiplied the estimated probability of failure (10%) by the potential loss per event (€900,000), yielding an annual expected impact of €90,000. This calculation provided a clearer basis for prioritizing the inverter failure risk relative to other risks in the risk register.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
What did the team at Solenco determine when they examined the likelihood and consequences of the inverter failure?

• A. The level of risk
• B. The criteria for risk acceptance
• C. Risk tolerance
• D. Risk appetite

What is the main difference between semi-structured and structured interviews in the context of risk identification?

• A. In a semi-structured interview, the interviewer follows only spontaneous questions, whereas in a structured interview, questions are asked at random.
• B. In a structured interview, the interviewer follows a set list of questions, while in a semi-structured interview, follow-up questions and exploration are flexible.
• C. There is no practical difference between the two approaches.
• D. In a semi-structured interview, the interviewer follows a strict script, while in a structured interview, no deviations are allowed.