Skills concentration risk: does your team have genuine coverage?

An organisation may have several qualified professionals and still remain dependent on a single employee to interpret requirements, oversee project implementation, assess evidence, test systems or support risk decisions.

This is where skills concentration risk becomes apparent: dependence on key personnel and the concentration of knowledge, authority or operational capability in one individual whose absence or departure jeopardises timely decision-making, project delivery, audits and incident response.

The answer is not to train every employee indiscriminately in every area. The challenge is to identify critical capabilities, establish viable skills redundancy and select training that is strictly aligned with the responsibilities the team must be able to assume.

How do skills concentration risk and dependence on key personnel arise?

This risk is rarely visible in an organisation chart. An organisation may have a dedicated information security, privacy or business continuity function and still depend on a single professional to interpret the Statement of Applicability, structure an audit, assess a vulnerability or substantiate the acceptance of a risk.

The dependency becomes apparent when the employee is absent, changes role or is allocated to several projects at the same time. The workflow remains formally assigned to the team, but the actual ability to perform the work is no longer available when it is needed.

A second risk factor also emerges: the erosion of segregation of duties. Concentrating responsibilities that require different perspectives in the same professional undermines governance. The person implementing the system has in-depth knowledge of it; however, independent assessment, technical testing and risk decisions require distinct skills, criteria and levels of objectivity.

The initial diagnosis should therefore not focus on immediately selecting a training course. The first step is to map the points at which the organisation relies exclusively on individual knowledge, undocumented decisions or a single individual to produce critical evidence of conformity.

Why are understanding, implementing, auditing and testing different capabilities?

A common foundation in information security is essential for interpreting concepts, requirements and controls. However, understanding the content of a standard is not equivalent to leading the implementation of a management system.

Implementing processes and controls is likewise not the same as auditing them. Auditing requires structured planning, rigorous collection and evaluation of evidence, the formulation of findings and the technical ability to support independent conclusions.

Technical validation serves a different need. Identifying a vulnerability, analysing exposure to risk or testing a system in a controlled environment requires practical and operational skills that knowledge of standards alone cannot replace.

Risk and resilience management also goes far beyond maintaining a static risk register. It requires clear criteria, the assessment of threat scenarios, the selection of treatment strategies, the monitoring of residual risk and the alignment of decisions with business continuity and organisational objectives.

When an organisation does not distinguish between understanding, implementing, auditing, testing or deciding, it tends to select training solely on the basis of the course title — rather than the actual capability that urgently needs to be developed.

How can you assess team resilience and coverage of critical capabilities?

The diagnosis can begin with three core questions, applied to each critical capability:

1. Who has the capability to perform this responsibility?

Identify the professional or role with the autonomy to carry out the activity from start to finish. It is not enough for the employee to be associated with the subject: they must have practical knowledge, authority and access to the necessary resources.

2. Who provides backup coverage for this capability?

Mitigating this risk does not necessarily require two professionals with the same level of specialisation. The organisation can designate a primary owner and a prepared alternate to ensure continuity of the activity, support a decision or mobilise specialised external support without having to restart the process.

3. What evidence demonstrates that the capability exists?

Completing a training course signals professional development, but it is not the only indicator. The organisation should be able to observe practical outputs: a robust implementation plan, a structured audit, a technical vulnerability report, formalised risk criteria or properly recorded decisions.

A simplified matrix makes this analysis more objective:

Which development pathway addresses the identified gap?

Once the diagnosis is complete, the appropriate certification pathway becomes clear.

To establish a common language and a solid foundation in information security management systems, the ISO 27001 Foundation certification prepares professionals who need to understand the essential requirements, controls and principles. When the priority is to lead implementation, operationalise the system and produce evidence of conformity, the appropriate pathway is ISO 27001 Lead Implementer.

Where the gap lies in assessment, it is essential to distinguish auditing from technical validation. The ISO 27701 Lead Auditor certification develops the skills required to plan and conduct audits of Privacy Information Management Systems. CEH® Certified Ethical Hacker, by contrast, addresses the need to perform technical testing of the infrastructure, identify vulnerabilities and support the prioritisation of corrective actions.

In the risk domain, the Risk Management in Business Continuity course focuses on the practical application of risk to the continuity of operations, covering disruptive risks, change management and critical dependencies. Finally, Integrated Risk & Resilience Lead Manager enables professionals to connect risk management, information security and organisational resilience through an integrated strategic approach.

The decision should therefore be based on the responsibility that needs to be covered. Training is truly relevant when it mitigates a specific uncertainty, whether that uncertainty concerns interpreting a requirement, implementing a system, auditing evidence, testing an exposure or supporting a risk decision.

Mitigating dependence on key personnel does not mean giving up specialisation. It means ensuring that a vital organisational capability does not exist only while a particular professional is available.

Frequently asked questions

Date: 1 September 2026
Author: Behaviour Group
Copying or reproduction of this article is not authorised.