FAIR recommends regular risk assessments and timely updates when major changes occur.

Outline

• Hook: Risk isn’t a one-and-done thing; cadence matters in FAIR thinking.

• Core idea: Risk assessments should be conducted regularly and also when significant changes happen.

• Why this cadence matters: the threat landscape and the organization evolve; static checks miss signals.

• What counts as a significant change: tech upgrades, new partners, regulatory shifts, reorganizations, or big process changes.

• How to implement in practice: a simple cadence plus trigger-based reassessments; who should be involved; what to document.

• Common pitfalls to avoid: reactive only after incidents, ignoring changes, vague risk statements.

• Quick, practical checklist to get started.

• Final thought: keeping a living view of risk helps resilience in a fast-moving world.

Risk is a moving target, not a fixed target

Let me explain it this way: risk isn’t something you measure once and then forget. In FAIR thinking, risk is shaped by people, processes, technology, and the ever-shifting external environment. If you wait for a security incident to push you to act, you’re playing catch-up. We’re talking about a continuous, living view of risk—one that updates as the company changes, and as threats and defenses evolve.

The core idea: cadence plus change signals

According to FAIR-inspired guidance, you should conduct risk assessments on a regular schedule and also whenever there are significant changes to the environment or the organization. Regular checks keep your risk posture current; change-driven checks catch surprises that a routine cadence might miss. Think of it as two engines working in tandem: the steady heartbeat of a planned review, and the alert system that flips on when big moves happen.

Why a regular rhythm matters

• The world changes fast. New software, cloud services, and data flows appear. Each change can alter your exposure.

• People and processes shift. A staffing change, a new vendor, or a restructured department can change who owns risk and how controls are applied.

• Threats evolve. Attackers adapt; new techniques, new vulnerabilities, and new data types all shift risk.

• Compliance and policy drift occur. Regulations evolve; a rule you once met might require a different approach later.

What counts as a significant change

Not every tweak triggers a full reassessment, but these kinds of shifts usually do:

• Adoption of new technology or data-handling processes (think IoT, AI models, or streaming data pipelines).

• Mergers, acquisitions, or major vendor changes that alter risk ownership or data flows.

• Regulatory or contractual changes that tighten or alter requirements.

• A redesign of core business processes or a shift in critical assets.

• Major incidents or near-misses that reveal new exposure paths.

• Changes in business strategy, product lines, or markets that affect risk tolerance or critical assets.

How to implement this in a practical, real-world way

Here’s a straightforward way to frame the cadence without getting bogged down in jargon:

1. Establish a baseline risk assessment

• Create an initial FAIR-informed risk picture for key assets and processes.

• Document threats, vulnerabilities, and potential impacts in plain language plus quantitative estimates where you can.

• Build a risk register that tracks likelihood, impact, and risk by asset or process.

2. Set a regular review cadence

• Decide a frequency that fits your organization (for many, quarterly or biannual reviews work well; others might do annual checks with lighter quarterly updates).

• Treat the cadence as a minimum, not a maximum. If changes occur, you reassess sooner.

3. Define trigger-based reassessments

• List signals that trigger an immediate reassessment, such as:

• New technology or data flow entering production

• Third-party changes or new vendors with access to critical data

• Business pivots, new product lines, or major process redesigns

• Regulatory updates or shifts in compliance expectations

• A security incident, near-miss, or new vulnerability with potential impact

• For each trigger, specify who is responsible, what data to collect, and what outputs to update.

4. Align with the FAIR model’s components

• Revisit assets, threat agents, and potential loss magnitudes.

• Recalculate the frequency and impact estimates if the environment shifts.

• Update risk rankings and remediation plans accordingly.

5. Document and communicate

• Keep a living record of assessments, the rationale for changes, and the decisions taken.

• Share with stakeholders across security, IT, compliance, and leadership so the risk posture is understood and supported.

6. Use practical triggers and checks

• Create lightweight checklists for regular reviews.

• Use change logs, deployment pipelines, and vendor risk reports as data sources.

• Tie the outputs to concrete actions: adjust controls, reallocate resources, or change risk tolerances as needed.

A few digressions that matter and then loop back

If you’re thinking, “Okay, but how often should we actually run these?” the honest answer is: it depends. Some teams operate with a tight regulatory clock; others run lean, focusing on major changes. The key is communication and clarity. Your risk community—security, IT, risk, and the business units—should agree on what constitutes a “significant change” and who signs off on updated risk statements. It’s a bit of governance, a pinch of collaboration, and a dash of common sense.

If your organization is moving toward more cloud services, for example, the risk view shifts. Cloud adoption changes who controls data, where data travels, and how quickly incidents can scale. You’ll want to reassess both the assets in scope and the threat-model assumptions when these shifts occur. If a merger happens, the data-handling norms, access controls, and vendor ecosystems can change overnight, meriting an immediate risk re-evaluation. And if regulations tighten—say new privacy or data-protection requirements—you’ll want to adjust both the likelihood and impact estimates to stay aligned with expectations.

A practical checklist you can scribble down or drop into a project board

• Do you have a baseline risk assessment for your most critical assets?

• Is there a clearly defined cadence for regular reviews (e.g., quarterly) and a simple process for immediate reassessment when changes occur?

• Do you have a list of triggers that automatically prompt a risk update?

• Are owners assigned for each asset and for each trigger?

• Is the risk register kept current, with clear, actionable remediation steps?

• Do you have a plan to communicate risk posture to leadership and relevant teams?

Common missteps—and how to dodge them

• Reactive only after a breach: this leaves you a step behind. Build that ongoing cadence and keep a list of triggers so you’re always looking ahead.

• Ignoring changes in dependencies: vendors, third parties, or new data pathways can shift risk even if your own systems don’t change visibly.

• Vague risk statements: “risk is high” isn’t actionable. Tie risk to specific assets, probabilities, and financial or operational impact, so teams know what to fix and why.

• Skipping documentation: if it isn’t written down, it’s easy to forget why a change was made. Documentation anchors accountability and alignment.

Real-world anchors you can lean on

• FAIR’s emphasis on the relationship between asset value, loss event frequency, and loss magnitude helps teams quantify risk and prioritize fixes.

• NIST frameworks and ISO 27005 offer governance structures that pair nicely with a change-driven risk approach.

• Regular governance rituals—risk reviews, incident post-mortems, and third-party risk assessments—keep the risk picture current and credible.

• When you discuss risk with leaders, frame it in terms of business impact: potential downtime, financial loss, reputational harm, or regulatory penalties. People respond to numbers that speak in terms they understand.

A closing thought: resilience is a living practice

Here’s the thing: resilience isn’t a final destination. It’s a way of staying ready as your organization evolves. Regular risk assessments, plus targeted checks when big changes occur, give you a practical, grounded way to keep pace with reality. You’ll find that this approach not only helps you manage risk more effectively but also builds a culture where teams talk openly about threats and defenses, rather than keeping quiet until something goes wrong.

If you’re mapping out your own risk management approach, start with the cadence that fits your organization and add the trigger-based layer. It’s not about chasing every potential threat—it's about keeping the most important assets visible, understood, and safeguarded as the business grows. And yes, you’ll want a clear plan for updating the risk picture whenever technology, partnerships, or regulations shift. That combination—regular reviews plus timely reassessments—keeps risk from slipping through the cracks and helps you stay prepared for whatever comes next.

Would you like a printable one-page version of this cadence and trigger checklist tailored to your organization? If you share a bit about your tech stack and key assets, I can tailor the triggers and sample risk statements to fit your environment.