Risk management template for determining priorities in action plans for the implementation of national e-accessibility policies

One of the most important ways of ensuring the success of e-accessibility projects is to define the implementation priorities of the national e-accessibility plan. Priorities should be set for each different sector, either during the policy design process or immediately after, according to the requirements of the policy.

A standardized scale to assess projects against the determined priorities must therefore be drawn up to help decision makers design and fund the e-accessibility action plan and reduce risks to a minimum.

A risk assessment table can be used to assign a score to each project. The lower the score, the lower the risk of the project and the cheaper, quicker and easier it is to carry out. A risk assessment table is therefore the perfect tool to support the implementation of the Government policy.

There are various standard templates for risk assessment tables that can be used at the national level. It is preferable for all institutions involved in implementing the national e-accessibility policy to use the same template when mapping out implementation priorities.

Example matrix for risk assessment and priority-setting

Sector/type of challenge Risk factors Risk score* Weighting** Risk score after weighting Total score
Technological Website        
Scope of work        
Infrastructure in place/required        
Technical difficulty        
Economic Duration        
Allocation of funds required        
Possibility of funding at level of the organization/project/governorate/municipality        
Reliance on immediate availability of liquidity        
Distribution of allocated funds        
Commercial/procurement Cost of annual (operating) licence for e-accessibility software        
Additional procurement requirements for enhanced e-accessibility processes        
Organizational Cross-over between the ongoing activities of institutions and their role in attaining one or more of the goals of the national e-accessibility policy        
Number of existing physical sites that need to be made more digitally accessible        
Number of existing websites and digital services that need to be made more digitally accessible        
Efficiency of the operating team        
Political Existence of supporting legislation        
Existence of supporting policies        
Existence of a national e-accessibility policy        
Support from all areas of government and their commitment to the plan        
Contribution of the private sector        
Level of media support        

* Risk score range.

** In this template, decision-makers can draw on their experience to apply an additional weighting to projects that may be particularly difficult to implement. Additional information not covered in the risk score table can also be added. Decision-makers should explain their reasons for adding any additional weighting.

Low High
Policy implementation in urban areas Policy implementation in rural areas
Outcomes for each sector are clearly described Objectives for each sector are vague and non-specific
Institutions have prior experience of implementing e-accessibility in their services Institutions have no prior experience of implementing e-accessibility in their services
The policy is easy to implement in the target sector The policy is difficult to implement in the target sector
The policy is realistic and can be implemented using available capacity The policy is ambitious and does not align with available capacity
The action plan for the policy is realistic and geared towards the desired objectives The objectives of the action plan must be achieved within a specific timeframe
The financial  resources required to carry out the action plan have been allocated The financial resources required to carry out the action plan have not been (fully) allocated
The policy can be implemented using existing technical capabilities Implementation of the policy depends on technical capabilities not currently in place
The policy can be implemented by a single implementing agency The policy cannot be implemented by a single implementing agency; multiple implementing agencies must work together
The cost of implementing the policy is low The cost of implementing the policy is high

(1) Very low risk – (5) Very high risk. Decision makers can decide what level of risk is acceptable based on their experience.