Managing risk across a large university campus is genuinely complex. Governance bodies want clearer assurance. Safety teams are managing incidents across thousands of students and staff. And risk functions are often expected to do more with less, while reporting to board level with consistency and confidence. This case study from Carleton University shows how one institution moved from fragmented spreadsheets and siloed tools to a single, connected platform for enterprise risk management, health and safety, and assurance across its 33,000-strong campus community.
Risk Management for Universities: From Fragmentation to a Connected Platform
When Carleton University formalised its Office of Risk Management, the challenge was not simply finding better software. It needed a platform capable of growing with its governance programme, adapting to board feedback, and expanding across multiple assurance domains over time. The existing approach relied on inconsistent spreadsheets and point solutions that could not provide the joined-up visibility that senior leadership and committee members were asking for.
The move to Clew changed how risk information flows through the institution. Rather than navigating competing document versions or manually reconciling data before each governance cycle, Carleton’s risk function can now update records directly in the system and regenerate reports quickly. Discussions at board and committee level shifted from debating report structure to focusing on inherent risk, residual exposure, and where intervention was needed.
What Connected Risk Software Looks Like in Practice
Implementation followed a staged approach, starting with enterprise risk management and expanding into health and safety, incident tracking, compliance, and business continuity workflows. A deliberate decision was made not to bulk-upload existing spreadsheets. Instead, workshops were run to establish new risk registers, which improved data quality and helped teams distinguish genuine risks from routine issues.
The platform integrates with Carleton’s HR identity system, covering approximately 7,000 staff, and supports a public web form that allows any of the university’s 33,000 students to report incidents or hazards directly into the system. This extends safety visibility well beyond the central risk team and strengthens the completeness of the risk picture available to assurance functions.
The Financial Case for Consolidating Risk Software in Education
For publicly funded institutions operating under tight budgets, the financial argument for consolidation matters. Rather than running separate tools for enterprise risk, health and safety, incident tracking, and assurance, Carleton brought everything into a single system of record. In the first year of using Clew, the University realised $171,000 in savings through software consolidation. Beyond the cost reduction, consolidation improved data integrity, simplified vendor management, and gave leadership a clearer, more trustworthy view of risk across the institution.
Who This Case Study Is For
Risk managers and governance professionals in higher education will find this case study directly relevant, particularly those responsible for reporting to board committees or managing risk across complex, multi-function environments. Chief operating officers and finance leaders will recognise the consolidation argument and the value of replacing fragmented tooling with a single platform. Health and safety leads in universities and other large educational institutions will see how frontline assurance and incident reporting can be connected to the broader enterprise risk picture.
The experience at Carleton University reflects a wider challenge in risk management for education: governance expectations are rising while resources remain constrained. This case study sets out how one institution built a more connected, mature approach to risk, safety and assurance without starting from scratch. Download the case study to see how they did it.
