The IS risk analysis based on a business model

被引:83
作者
Suh, B [1 ]
Han, I [1 ]
机构
[1] Korea Adv Inst Sci & Technol, Grad Sch Management, Seoul 130012, South Korea
关键词
risk analysis; asset valuation; business model; analytic hierarchy process (AHP); asset-function assignment; paired comparison; INFORMATION-SYSTEMS; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.1016/S0378-7206(03)00044-2
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
The disruption of operations due to IS failure becomes more important as IS has become an increasingly essential component of the organization's operations and can affect its strategic objectives. Nevertheless, traditional IS risk analysis methods do not adequately reflect the loss from disruption of operations in determining the value of IS assets. Quantitative methods do not measure the loss from disruption of operations. Qualitative methods consider the loss, but their results are subjective and not suitable for cost-benefit decision support. There is a lack of systematic methods to measure the value of IS assets from the viewpoint of operational continuity. This study presents an IS risk analysis method based on a business model. The method uses a systematic quantitative approach dealing with operational continuity: the importance of various business functions and the necessity level of various assets are first determined. The value of each asset is then determined based on these two levels. The proposed method adds the first stage, organizational investigation, to traditional risk analysis. The process of the method utilizes various methodologies such as paired comparison, asset-function assignment tables, and asset dependency diagrams. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:149 / 158
页数:10
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]   INFORMATION-SYSTEMS SECURITY DESIGN METHODS - IMPLICATIONS FOR INFORMATION-SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT [J].
BASKERVILLE, R .
COMPUTING SURVEYS, 1993, 25 (04) :375-414
[2]  
Bennett S. P., 1992, Proceedings. Eighth Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (Cat. No.92TH0470-5), P64, DOI 10.1109/CSAC.1992.228232
[3]  
*CCTA, 1993, CCTA RISK AN MAN MET
[4]  
CERULLO MJ, 1994, COMPUTER AUDIT J, P9
[5]   Risk analysis: Requirements, conflicts and problems [J].
Ciechanowicz, Z .
COMPUTERS & SECURITY, 1997, 16 (03) :223-232
[6]   A conceptual framework for information security management [J].
Finne, T .
COMPUTERS & SECURITY, 1998, 17 (04) :303-307
[7]   Information systems risk management: Key concepts and business processes [J].
Finne, T .
COMPUTERS & SECURITY, 2000, 19 (03) :234-242
[8]  
*GAO, 1998, EX GUID INF SEC MAN
[9]   Physical protection systems - Cost and performance analysis: A case study [J].
Hicks, MJ ;
Snell, MS ;
Sandoval, JS ;
Potter, CS .
IEEE AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS MAGAZINE, 1999, 14 (04) :9-13
[10]  
Hoffer J.A., 1999, Modern Systems Analysis and Design