Description

A focused course, tailored for you

MAS Technology Risk Advisory for Advisory Partners

Build the structured methodology that turns MAS TRM and Notice 655 obligations into client-ready advisory deliverables your team can execute consistently.

MAS technology risk engagements turn on artefact quality. A rigorous methodology still fails client review if the gap assessment, board escalation log, and Notice 655 incident reporting annexe do not match the structure MAS examiners expect to see. Most advisory teams build these by feel, creating rework risk on every engagement.

$199 one-time

Tailored to your situation. Access within 24 hours. 30-day money-back.

Includes a hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access, generated for your specific situation.

Why this course

Partners leading MAS technology risk advisory mandates carry two simultaneous obligations: the client's internal risk appetite framework and MAS's external examination posture. MAS TRM Guidelines (2021), Notice 655, and the outsourcing framework each specify implicit artefact structures. When the advisory deliverable does not mirror those structures, clients receive regulator follow-up questions that loop back to the advisory team. The fix is not doing more work; it is knowing which artefact, structured how, satisfies which MAS expectation. This course encodes that knowledge into reusable templates.

What you walk away with

Map each MAS TRM domain to the specific artefact a MAS examiner will request and know how to produce it.
Build a Notice 655 cybersecurity incident reporting chain your client's technology team can operate without advisory hand-holding.
Structure board technology risk reporting at the level of specificity MAS expects to see escalated from management.
Design outsourcing risk annexes that satisfy MAS Guidelines on Outsourcing requirements without rework from the regulator.
Produce a reusable gap assessment methodology your senior associates can run consistently across different financial institution clients.
Reduce regulator follow-up questions by structuring advisory deliverables around MAS examination logic from the first draft.

The 12 modules

Module 1. MAS Examination Logic: What Examiners Read For

MAS technology risk examinations follow a defined evidence hierarchy: board paper trail first, management reporting second, control artefacts third. This module decodes that hierarchy so advisory deliverables are structured for the examiner's reading order, not the client's internal workflow. Covers the distinction between MAS TRM Guidelines (principles-based) and Notice 655 (rules-based) and how that distinction shapes what artefacts are mandatory versus expected.

Module 2. TRM Domain Mapping: Controls to Artefact

Each of the eleven MAS TRM domains (governance, IT risk management, IT audit, IT project management, IT service management, IT change management, cybersecurity, IT resilience, data management, outsourcing, and cloud) maps to a specific artefact type an examiner expects. This module builds a domain-by-artefact matrix your team can use as an engagement checklist, with annotated examples of what a compliant artefact looks like versus a technically correct but MAS-unreadable one.

Module 3. Gap Assessment Structure: The Two-Tier Format MAS Expects

MAS gap assessments that loop back to the advisory team consistently share the same structural gap: a single-tier finding list with no separation between board-reportable gaps and management-level remediation items. This module establishes the two-tier format, where tier-one findings are framed for board escalation and tier-two items are remediation roadmap entries, with the linkage between tiers explicit. Includes a downloadable gap assessment template pre-structured to this format.

Module 4. Board Escalation Triggers: What Gets Elevated and How

MAS examiners review board technology risk papers for evidence that management is escalating material issues on a defined trigger schedule, not just at the next scheduled board meeting. This module specifies the four trigger categories MAS monitors (cybersecurity incidents, critical system outages, third-party concentration risk events, and significant deviations from IT risk appetite) and shows how to design the escalation protocol in the board reporting framework your client adopts.

Module 5. Notice 655 Cybersecurity Framework: The Operational Artefacts

Notice 655 imposes mandatory obligations on financial institutions around cybersecurity governance, incident reporting, and system security management. This module walks through the six operational artefacts Notice 655 requires the institution to maintain (cybersecurity policy, cybersecurity incident reporting procedure, vulnerability management process, access management controls, penetration test records, and third-party security assessment log), with templates for each and the specific linkage to the MAS incident reporting timeline.

Module 6. Incident Reporting Chain: The 14-Day and 1-Hour Obligations

Notice 655 imposes two distinct reporting timelines: a 1-hour notification obligation for specified major incidents and a 14-calendar-day detailed report submission. Advisory teams frequently design one reporting chain that tries to serve both, producing a chain that satisfies neither. This module builds two separate reporting chains, with the trigger criteria, the responsible roles, the notification content requirements, and the MAS submission format for each tier. Includes a downloadable reporting chain flowchart and a notification template.

Module 7. Outsourcing Risk Annexe: Structure for MAS Examination

The MAS Guidelines on Outsourcing require financial institutions to maintain a material outsourcing register and a risk assessment for each material arrangement. When advisory teams build these, the most common MAS follow-up relates to the risk assessment methodology: how concentration risk was quantified, how exit plan feasibility was assessed, and how subcontracting chains were evaluated. This module specifies the risk assessment structure that satisfies MAS examination, with an annotated example register entry and a downloadable assessment template.

Module 8. Cloud Risk Framework: MAS Stance and Advisory Positioning

MAS has issued explicit guidance on public cloud adoption by financial institutions, layered on top of the outsourcing framework. Advisory teams need a cloud risk framework artefact that addresses MAS's specific data residency, access control, and exit plan requirements without recycling the standard outsourcing risk annexe. This module builds the cloud-specific risk assessment overlay, with MAS examination questions mapped to each assessment dimension and a downloadable cloud risk assessment template aligned to MAS guidance.

Module 9. IT Resilience Testing: From BCM to MAS TRM Domain 8

Most financial institutions have an existing business continuity management programme. MAS TRM Domain 8 requires more granular artefacts: recovery time objective and recovery point objective documentation per critical system, annual DR test results with examiner-readable pass/fail criteria, and a technology resilience dashboard for board reporting. This module bridges the client's BCM framework to Domain 8 requirements, with a gap analysis checklist and a DR test results template structured for MAS review.

Module 10. Senior Management Risk Reporting: The Dashboard MAS Reads

MAS examiners assess whether senior management receives technology risk information at sufficient granularity to exercise meaningful oversight. The common advisory gap: dashboards designed for management convenience rather than MAS examination. This module specifies the six metrics MAS expects to see in senior management technology risk reporting (critical vulnerability age, unresolved high-severity incidents, patch compliance rate, DR test results, third-party security assessment currency, and IT project risk rating), with a downloadable dashboard template and commentary guidance.

Module 11. Engagement Quality Control: Pre-Submission Review Checklist

Before any advisory deliverable reaches the client, a structured pre-submission review against MAS examination logic reduces regulator follow-up by a material margin. This module builds the review checklist your senior associates run on every engagement: artefact completeness by TRM domain, board escalation trigger documentation, Notice 655 operational artefact currency, outsourcing register completeness, and incident reporting chain legibility. Covers the most frequent causes of MAS follow-up questions and the specific artefact fixes that close each one.

Module 12. Practice Build: Reusable Methodology Across Engagements

A single engagement's artefacts solve one client's problem. A reusable methodology solves every future client's problem at a fraction of the per-engagement effort. This module assembles the course's templates, checklists, and artefacts into an engagement methodology your team adopts as a standard operating approach for MAS technology risk mandates. Covers version control for MAS guideline updates, customising the methodology for different institution types, and scoping new mandates using the methodology.

How this addresses your situation

Specific modules that map to what you said you are dealing with.

Partner receives MAS examination follow-up on a recently delivered gap assessment: modules 1, 3, 11.

Senior associate building a Notice 655 cybersecurity framework for a new bank client: modules 5, 6.

Client asks for board technology risk reporting redesign ahead of an MAS examination: modules 4, 10.

Engagement requires outsourcing risk annexe for a client adopting a new cloud provider: modules 7, 8.

What you get with this course

Twelve written modules covering MAS TRM Guidelines, Notice 655, and the outsourcing framework from an advisory-delivery perspective.
Downloadable gap assessment template in two-tier MAS format.
Notice 655 incident reporting chain flowchart and notification templates for both reporting tiers.
Outsourcing risk assessment template structured for MAS examination.
Cloud risk assessment overlay template aligned to MAS guidance.
DR test results template and IT resilience dashboard template.
Senior management technology risk reporting dashboard template.
Pre-submission review checklist for all MAS TRM advisory deliverables.
Hand-built implementation playbook tailored to your practice context, delivered alongside course access.

What you will have in hand by Day 1, Week 1, Month 1

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.

Before and after

Before

Advisory deliverables meet the client's internal standard but draw MAS examiner follow-up questions on artefact structure, board escalation documentation, or incident reporting chain design. Rework loops back to the advisory team after submission.

After

Deliverables are structured around MAS examination logic from the first draft. Senior associates work from reusable templates with explicit MAS artefact requirements built in. Regulator follow-up questions drop because the artefact structure answers the examiner's questions before they are asked.

What happens if you do not address this

Every engagement where a deliverable draws MAS follow-up questions costs the advisory team rework hours, extends the engagement timeline, and signals to the client that the methodology was not examination-ready. Over multiple engagements this erodes the practice's reputation for MAS regulatory work, which is a defensible and high-margin revenue segment in Singapore financial services.

Who it is for

Advisory partners and directors at professional services firms who lead financial institution technology risk engagements in Singapore. Typical mandates: MAS TRM compliance gap assessments, Notice 655 cybersecurity framework reviews, outsourcing risk advisory, board-level technology risk reporting design. You manage a team of senior associates who execute the day-to-day work; you review and sign off on client deliverables and manage the MAS relationship.

Who this is NOT for. Technology risk in-house practitioners at financial institutions building internal programmes. This course is advisory-delivery specific: it is about producing client-facing artefacts that satisfy MAS examination, not about running an internal compliance programme.

How it arrives

Text-based course in the Art of Service learning environment, plus downloadable templates and worked examples for every module, plus the hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access.

Time investment. Twelve modules. Most partners complete the core modules (1, 2, 3, 5, 11) in a single sitting and assign the template modules to senior associates for implementation. Full course is typically completed across three to four hours total.

Why $199 is the right number

MAS TRM training is available from the Institute of Banking and Finance and a small number of specialist risk training providers. That training addresses the institution practitioner perspective: how a bank's own risk team builds its programme. This course addresses the advisory delivery perspective: how to produce client-facing artefacts that pass MAS examination. The two are different bodies of knowledge. Most advisory partners have the institutional knowledge from prior MAS examination experience; what this course adds is the artefact structure and reusable methodology that converts that knowledge into consistent deliverables.

FAQ

Is this course specific to Singapore's MAS regulations or does it cover other Asian regulators?

This course is built specifically around MAS TRM Guidelines (2021), Notice 655, and the MAS Guidelines on Outsourcing. It does not cover HKMA, BNM, or other ASEAN regulatory frameworks, though the advisory methodology for structuring artefacts transfers to other examination-driven regulators.

My team already has engagement templates from past MAS work. Will this add to what we have or duplicate it?

The course's value is in the MAS examination logic, not just the templates. If your current templates were built by experienced practitioners who understand MAS examination posture, modules 1, 4, and 11 are the most relevant for checking alignment. The full course is most useful for building consistent methodology across the team, particularly for senior associates who have not yet led an MAS examination engagement.

How current is the regulatory content?

The course is built on MAS TRM Guidelines (2021 version), Notice 655 (current), and MAS Guidelines on Outsourcing (current). MAS updates its guidance periodically; the implementation playbook includes a section on monitoring for MAS guidance updates and adapting the engagement methodology accordingly.

30-day money-back guarantee. If after a week of working through the materials this is not what you needed, reply to the receipt email and a full refund is processed. No questions, no forms.

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.