Resilience MI & Reporting Uplift
27th February 2026 ·
Albany Beck partnered with a FMI to enhance the transparency and effectiveness of its operational resilience management information. As a systemically important entity supporting clearing and settlement services, the FMI faced heightened supervisory expectations around impact tolerance reporting and executive accountability. Although resilience frameworks were defined, reporting was fragmented across risk, technology and operations, limiting traceability between important business services and remediation activity. We deployed programme leadership and data expertise to centralise governance and embed a structured, board-ready resilience oversight framework.
Challenge
The FMI had defined important business services and impact tolerances across clearing and settlement functions, but resilience data remained dispersed across risk, technology and operations teams. Traceability between service mapping, testing outcomes and remediation was limited. Executive reporting lacked clear visibility of tolerance exposure, and scenario testing was not consistently linked to prioritised remediation. With regulatory scrutiny increasing, stronger transparency and board-level control discipline were required.
Approach
Albany Beck deployed a Programme Manager, Data Analysts and Operational Resilience SMEs to assess resilience data lineage, reporting structures and governance ownership. A structured diagnostic was conducted across service mapping, tolerance alignment and remediation tracking to identify inconsistencies and control gaps. We designed a centralised resilience MI framework aligning data sources, ownership models and executive reporting outputs. Clear performance indicators and threshold metrics were defined to support proactive oversight.
Solution
Structured dashboards were implemented to provide unified visibility across important business services, supporting assets, scenario testing results and remediation progress. Data definitions were standardised and traceability strengthened between impact tolerances and underlying infrastructure dependencies. Executive reporting was redesigned to focus on vulnerability prioritisation, forward-looking indicators and tolerance alignment rather than retrospective compliance outputs. Manual consolidation processes were reduced through improved data governance and reporting automation. Resilience reporting became embedded within ongoing executive oversight rather than operating as a standalone regulatory submission exercise.
Outcomes
Board-level transparency improved significantly, with clearer visibility of tolerance exposure and remediation progress across critical clearing and settlement services. Reporting cycles accelerated, reducing manual effort and increasing data integrity. The FMI strengthened its ability to demonstrate resilience maturity to supervisors while improving internal prioritisation and funding alignment. Operational resilience oversight evolved from fragmented reporting to structured, data-led governance.