Chapter 2 — Human factors and cyber policy: service and stakeholder context

Lesson map

Lesson 02 published. Map, example, EX006.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["2.1 Services and people"]
  N2["2.2 Decision points"]
  N3["2.3 Stakeholder concerns"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
  N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
  EX --> Q["Exercise EX006"]

Logical drawing

flowchart LR
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["2.1 Services and people"]
  N2["2.2 Decision points"]
  N3["2.3 Stakeholder concerns"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX006"]

[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[2.1 Services and people]
    |
    v
[2.2 Decision points]
    |
    v
[2.3 Stakeholder concerns]
    |
    v
[Synthesis]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX006]

Learning outcomes

You will (1) map Ferngate's services and stakeholders; (2) identify where people face security decisions; (3) understand stakeholder concerns.

2.1 Services and people

Grace maps Ferngate's services: tenancy management, repairs, rent collection and community support. Stakeholders include tenants, staff, repair contractors, the IT supplier, the board and the housing regulator. Staff often work remotely, visiting tenants with tablets, and use email and a housing management system. Tenants contact Ferngate by phone, email and an online portal. Each relationship creates opportunities for impersonation, such as fake contractors asking for payment or callers pretending to be tenants to obtain information about a neighbour. She draws the map on one page.

2.2 Decision points

Grace lists points where staff face security decisions: answering phone requests for tenant information, approving contractor invoices, opening attachments from tenants and logging into the system on shared tablets. She talks to five colleagues about recent difficult moments. A housing officer describes a caller claiming to be a tenant's son asking for her new address. A finance assistant describes an urgent invoice from a contractor's lookalike address. These conversations ground her work in real pressures rather than abstract threats. She writes each story without names.

2.3 Stakeholder concerns

Grace interviews stakeholders about their concerns. Managers worry about fraud and regulator scrutiny. Staff worry about being blamed for mistakes and about extra work. Tenants, through a tenants' panel, worry about privacy and want to be sure Ferngate will not ask for bank details by email. The IT supplier worries about unclear requests from staff. She records concerns in a simple table. Understanding concerns helps her design changes that answer them, making support more likely across groups. Managers review the table.

Worked example

Grace maps services and stakeholders, records decision points from colleagues' stories and tabulates stakeholder concerns.

Synthetic case. All details are synthetic.

Errors and limits

Interviews reflect few voices. Concerns change.

Exercises

• EX006 — Remote work. How do housing officers often work?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = remotely with tablets visiting tenants;; 2 = mobile;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
• EX007 — Caller example. What did the fake son caller want?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = a tenant's new address;; 2 = address;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
• EX008 — Staff concern. What do staff worry about?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = blame and extra work;; 2 = two;; 1 = fraud;; 0 = none.
• EX009 — Tenant concern. What do tenants want assurance about?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = Ferngate never asks for bank details by email;; 2 = email;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
• EX010 — Concerns table. Why record stakeholder concerns?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = to design changes that answer them;; 2 = design input;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.

Synthesis

Service and stakeholder context shows where people decide and what they worry about.

Continue studying — chapter 02 of 12

← Chapter 01 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 03 (draft) →