Table of contents:
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.
| 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.