AGCG Genuine
Consulting Group

When properly executed, however, a risk assessment becomes a powerful decision-making tool capable of informing the Executive Committee, structuring investment plans and catalyzing cybersecurity transformation.

What makes the difference? Not the sophistication of the method, but the ability to connect cyber risks to business issues, harmonize the approach across entities, and deliver an actionable vision rather than an exhaustive report.

1.1. A Technological Approach Detached from Business Reality

In many cases, risk assessments are carried out by cyber experts without sufficiently deep dialogue with business units. The result:

• scenarios that do not reflect real usage,
• poorly qualified impacts,
• priorities misaligned with operational challenges,
• remediation measures misunderstood or rejected by the business.

Symptom: “critical” risks that aren’t, and “minor” risks that cause major disruption during incidents — all leading to arbitration decisions that often go against cybersecurity.

---

1.2. A checkbox exercise inherited from frameworks

Some assessments follow a rigid model (ISO, EBIOS, NIST…), applied mechanically without adaptation to the context. The framework becomes a constraint, and the analysis turns into an administrative exercise.

Symptom: a 200-page report impossible for an Executive Committee to use.

---

1.3. Total dilution when the scope covers multiple entities

This is the most common case in international groups or multisite organizations. Without:

• harmonized scales,
• aligned criteria,
• cross-functional governance,

the analysis fragments, results become inconsistent and therefore unusable.

Symptom: four entities, four methods, four maturity levels… and no global steering.

(AGCG recently had to completely rebuild a multi-entity assessment framework for a transportation sector client after a severe ISO 27001 audit.)

---

1.4. Inability to translate technology into business issues

Most assessments fail because they remain stuck in cybersecurity jargon. Executives do not make decisions based on:

• CWE-787,
• CVSS,
• firewall rule failures,
• or a “medium” risk score.

They decide based on:

• financial impact,
• production risk,
• regulatory exposure,
• reputational risk.

Symptom: “We don’t understand what this means for us.”

---

1.5. No real prioritization

Many reports list dozens of risks… but fail to identify:

• the top 5 urgencies,
• the 3 structural initiatives,
• the global level of effort,
• the associated budget,
• the decisions required.

Without prioritization, no arbitration is possible. The Executive Committee cannot act.

“Risk assessments do not fail because they are complex. They fail because they are not built for those who must make decisions.”

— AGCG Genuine Consulting Group

2.1. Start from business strategy — not vulnerabilities

A useful assessment begins with targeted interviews:

• executive leadership,
• key business stakeholders,
• Finance,
• production / operations,
• legal / compliance.

The objective: understand what creates value, what is critical, and what the organization absolutely cannot afford to lose. Only after this do we map assets, risks and protections.

💡 At AGCG, the first 20 questions do not concern cybersecurity — they concern strategy.

---

2.2. Harmonize scales, methods and language

In a multi-entity group, everything must be identical:

• likelihood definitions,
• impact levels,
• scenario templates,
• scoring methods,
• criticality criteria.

This harmonization is the prerequisite for producing a consolidated view.

🧭 AGCG has developed a rapid harmonization framework enabling alignment of up to 4–5 entities in under six weeks.

---

2.3. Systematically translate cybersecurity into business impacts

Every risk must be expressed in a language readable by an Executive Committee:

• financial impact,
• regulatory exposure,
• IT / business dependencies,
• business continuity,
• brand reputation.

This changes everything: decision-makers can finally compare risks against each other.

---

2.4. Radical prioritization

To be credible, a risk assessment must deliver:

• 3 absolute urgencies,
• 5 structural levers,
• an 18–24 month trajectory,
• realistic budgets,
• measurable quick wins.

🎯 AGCG has developed a rapid visualization model for action plans (the ROSI – Return On Security Investment matrix).

---

2.5. Deliver a decision-making model — not a report

A useful deliverable is:

• synthetic,
• visual,
• decision-oriented,
• structured specifically for the Executive Committee.

AGCG best practices include:

• business risk heatmaps,
• disruptive business scenarios,
• strategic option sets (A/B/C),
• cost vs impact views,
• phased roadmaps.

The Executive Committee must be able to decide in one hour. If it takes two weeks to read the report, the assessment has failed.

Drawing on multiple engagements in luxury, finance, industry and public sectors, AGCG has built a three-stage approach:

1. Accelerated understanding of business issues (2–3 weeks)
   → business workshops
   → value mapping
   → identification of critical dependencies
2. Unified multi-entity risk assessment (4–8 weeks)
   → harmonization of scales
   → scenario-based analysis
   → cross-entity consolidation
3. Executive Committee briefing & transformation plan (3 weeks)
   → strict prioritization
   → budget scenarios
   → strategic choices
   → 18–24 month roadmap

This approach enabled one global client to:

• reverse an unfavorable ISO 27001 audit,
• obtain a “strength” mention in the re-audit,
• align four entities around one model,
• and provide the Executive Committee with simple, durable governance.

When executed properly, a risk assessment becomes a strategic catalyst for:

• directing investments,
• strengthening resilience,
• steering transformation,
• and enabling confident decision-making.

Risk assessments do not fail because they are complex. They fail because they are not designed for those who must make decisions.

This is exactly what the AGCG approach fixes: making risk readable, actionable and valuable — at last.