Bryan Whitefield

Bryan Whitefield focuses on building risk leaders in organisations and on demystifying enterprise risk management, risk financing and business continuity planning for non-risk professionals.

Posted by on in Risk Management

I was reading a recent article from Knowledge@Wharton called “It’s Worth What!? Pressure-testing Companies with Sky-high Valuations” based on a book by Derek Lidow about Startups and what leadership style is needed at which point.  So if you are a stock market punter it is worth a full read.

I was attracted to the article because I remember oh so well the dot.com to dot.bomb era at the turn of the century (doesn’t that sound like a long time ago?) and I have been fascinated with valuations of companies like Facebook and Uber.  I understand that the market is backing the intellectual capital within the heads of the founders and their employees, however, this article clarified for me some of the decisions they need to make so they “make it” in business.

One key decision is to create and to hone at the same time.  The article refers to Google as having “…shown itself skilful at creating new products while simultaneously honing existing ones”.  

The process of creating and honing is not just for Startups.  It has a place in most product and service development.  Everyone in business should be looking for add-ons to your offering, however, add-ons bring complexity and so you also need to know when to pare back complexity and hone-in on what you do best.

The way to pare back complexity is to reveal cause and effect.  That is, which of our product or service offering add-ons are causing customer satisfaction, which have become neutral and which are now causing dissatisfaction.  Just because you added it on for good reason a year ago, doesn’t mean it should stay today. 

     
Continue reading
Hits: 36 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

If you have attended a workshop or speech of mine in the last 10 years you may well have been exposed to my version of the risk management journey for organisations from Vulnerable to Resilient.  I portray the journey using an S-Curve, as shown here:




The nature of an S-Curve is that it is relatively easy to run up the middle of the curve, however, it is difficult to move up the last 20% or so.  So it is for organisations in their risk management journey and so it is for Risk Advisors in organisations.

My observation is that there are four phases along the S-Curve for a corporate risk advisor.  They are:

•    Framework Designer
•    Perception Modifier
•    Behaviour Change, and

•    Trusted Advisor


If you focus too much on framework design you are likely to make it too complex.  Once you move on to modifying staff’s perceptions you begin to make substantial change in your world; that is, people seem to be listening.  The real test is if you have moved on to become a Behaviour Changer.  Are staff behaving the way you hope they will, are they making better decisions by taking more account of the uncertainty around those decisions?  And then the ultimate
goal is to become the Trusted Advisor.  Are you getting invited to the table where the big decisions are being made?


Where are you on your personal S-Curve?

 

Continue reading
Hits: 76 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

The MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte University Press have collaborated to produce an excellent paper on the value of social media.  It is titled Moving Beyond Marketing and it can be found here

The article made me realise that if all an organisation is doing is using social media for communicating messages and monitoring the response, they are missing out on great opportunities.  The paper is based on research into social media use by business and derives its key learnings from businesses they describe as at the mature end of the sector, the ones:

  •  Using social media to make a broad range of decisions
  • That have their leadership focused on a vision of social media creating massive positive change, and
  • That have a vision that includes social media being used for much, much more than marketing

 

Here are some thoughts from my read of the paper:

  • Integrate social media into operations such as to drive product development or help facilitate after sales service.  How often do you search for a solution to a problem with a product on the internet only to find the company only provides a manual that doesn’t really help?  The next search result is for a forum where some other poor sod with the same problem who solved it, has the good sense to let other people know about it.  More advanced companies have their own forums, monitor other forums and respond through those same channels.
  • Monitoring social media is an obvious must, however, there also should be a periodic high level review of the data.  Trends, repetition, absence of reference are all items that may tell a story that needs to be acted on.
  • Senior management must get involved.  It can’t just be outsourced to those in the organisation who use and like social media.  It requires leadership to ensure the best results.  That doesn’t mean you have to be on Twitter like Rupert Murdoch.
  • Facilitate how social media drives talent development.   Use social media to allow staff to express themselves, share knowledge and cultivate a strong, close-knit community.

There are lots of great examples in this paper of how companies have utilised social media to drive change.  I encourage you not to sit back and watch, get in and be part of it as the way we work continues to evolve.

Continue reading
Hits: 65 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

My view of the role of the risk profession differs to those who designed and promote the Three Lines of Defence (3LOD) model (at least how it has been interpreted by some).  As with my musings on whether there should be separate risk and audit committees for Boards, (see Blog, 22/11/09 “Should Audit and Risk Committees be Separate?”  and Risk e-Views - Risk Leadership: Should a Board have a Risk Committee? 22/09/12)  I feel risk professionals in organisations need to be advisors and confidants of the business and leave assurance to the audit profession.  Whereas the 3LOD model promotes risk as an overseer, a challenger of business decisions and an assurer of good business decision-making, I see risk as an enabler.

 

The truth is, business people make decisions.  They invite into their decision chamber those people they trust to help them consider the options and make a decision.  (Do you remember Maxwell Smart’s love of the “Cone of Silence”?) If risk is positioned as the challenger of business decisions, the business decision-maker will be tempted to “game” the information they provide to the challenger, providing biased and limited information with the aim to steam-roll the risk advisor into approving the decision. 

What we want is the risk professional to be seen as trusted advisor and the first person invited to the table to consider the tough decisions.

 

Continue reading
Hits: 86 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

I have said more than once that the IT industry has much to be blamed for in terms of poor project delivery.  I wrote a discussion paper on Project Risk Management where I lead off with “Why could we land a man on the moon in 1969 yet in 2013 we struggle to get a moderate sized IT project delivered successfully? – An acceptance of mediocrity?”

I recently read “Agile for Dummies” published by IBM and authored by Scott W. Ambler and Matthew Holitza, which is about mastering Agile, a project management methodology for IT projects (by the way, it’s free).  It reminded me of a conversation I had with a mate about project management that made me realise we really do not learn enough from other industries.  My mate was a very experienced project manager in the major construction industry.  Later in his career he found himself managing a large non-construction project for an organisation and he told me that they thought he was an absolute genius because he introduced two week project planning within the longer-term 12 month project plan.  Of course, this is how he had learnt the trade of project management, he never knew any other way.

The truth is that the Agile IT project management technique, whether by accident or because they went looking, is based on short, such as two week, development windows.  Where it differs from a construction project is their focus on delivering working software every two weeks whereas that focus can’t apply to building a 30-storey building!

Now all the Agile community needs to get right is some good risk assessment methodologies and the IT industry really will have learnt to do things well.  They may exist, however, I have not found an IT team that was doing risk assessment well before I arrived (sorry clients!), and IBM’s paper did not fill me full of confidence.  It does recognise “project risk” throughout and they do provide tips on how to reduce it.  In fact, they mention risk management as one of the “things” to be focussed on at the right time, but include nothing about how to do it.

Continue reading
Hits: 144 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

Risk taking is not just essential it is unavoidable.  The other evening I was waiting at a busy intersection with complicated turning options for vehicles.  I saw a green light, took two steps, realised something was wrong and hightailed it back to the curb.  Yes, it was the green light for the cars and my pre-programmed and distracted brain misinterpreted it as a signal for me to commence my crossing.

How could this “incident” be avoided?  Automatic barriers preventing me from crossing that are linked to the lights? The same system at every busy intersection?  That infrastructure would cost millions – could this money be better spent on health or education?

My point is, society has by default chosen a background level of risk to life and limb that is at least approaching tolerable although we continue to try and improve safety as our knowledge, technology and wealth increases. 

Has anyone written down our society’s appetite for risk? Should we?  Would we?

This is a truly vexing question and in an organisational context, managers often either choose not to document their implied risk appetite or write down what they believe is palatable rather than the truth.  Does this impede risk-based decision-making in the organisation or do staff inherently know the accepted level?

In my experience the larger the organisation, the less likely staff have adopted the same risk appetite that senior management have for risk.  Documenting and communicating risk appetite both ensures all senior managers are on the same page and definitely drives decision-making further down the organisation. 

If you don’t have one, have a look at this sample Risk Appetite Statement and let me know if you would like some help.

 

Continue reading
Hits: 71 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

Last month I provided some tips regarding improving engagement with your risk program through developing your personal skills and building a team of Risk Champions to support you.  This month I want to dig a little deeper to expose a key driver to great engagement and that is experiential learning.

Because of many people’s poor perception of risk their willingness to engage is very low.  The perceptions of risk as only compliance, as a handbrake on business, is a barrier to learning.  Consequently you need strong learning techniques to break down the barrier.

My tips:

  • Describe the barrier – unveil it if you wish
  • Paint a different picture of risk – paint a picture of success
  • Take them through the process – show them it works

For the last tip, showing them it works, I highly recommend you follow these 5 experiential learning steps:

  1. Break your participants into groups
  2. Use live examples such as a current project
  3. Ask them to apply the risk tools and templates you have provided them
  4. Guide them through the process with your expert facilitation
  5. Help them to implement their learnings back in the workplace

Continue reading
Hits: 179 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

Food for Thought: Is it Luck or Good Management?

They have a saying in the insurance industry: “A lucky underwriter beats a good underwriter any day of the week”.  Well, we have it confirmed once again that Australia is the Lucky Country.  This time the evidence is provided by APRA in their submission to the Financial System Enquiry on 31 March 2014.

In the Executive Summary on Page 6 it states:

“APRA eschewed light touch supervision in the wake of the collapse of HIH Insurance in 2001, and it has significantly strengthened its supervisory approaches and practices since then. In APRA’s view, its most enduring contribution to the resilience of institutions in the crisis came from its ‘close touch’ efforts to promote their financial health prior to the crisis, and to deal conclusively with struggling institutions.”

So the truth of the matter is that following the massive impact of the collapse of HIH, APRA changed and changed more than significantly.  It grew very large teeth and it has not been afraid to use them.  By 2007/2008 as the financial crisis unfolded the heavy hand of APRA had been felt by Australia’s financial institutions and their management had not played the same games as their counterparts around the world.  Australia survived relatively intact.  Now APRA, quite rightly, is seen as a guiding light for other regulators globally.

Still, there is a bigger question.  Why can’t we learn from the past and not take our eye off the ball when things are going well again?  Perhaps it is simply the optimistic nature of humankind.

If things are going pretty well for your organisation now, please investigate your corporate memory bank and have a look for where history may be repeating itself.

       

 

Continue reading
Hits: 99 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

Food for Thought – Policy Administration

Last November in my Risk e-Views newsletter I wrote about a book entitled Administrative Behaviour by Herbert A. Simon. In a nutshell, Simon describes the basis of an organisation as:

•    A well-defined purpose communicated to staff and other stakeholders.
•    A series of decisions that affect actions.
•    Policies, processes and systems to influence the decisions.

So, I recognise policies are inherently important for guiding the decision-making within your organisation, however, policies and their abundance have always been a vexed issue for me.  In an ideal world all of your people know everything you could possibly write in a policy through osmosis.  The reality is, there is a never-ending challenge to get the balance right between a policy void (low control) and policy mania (high control).

I found this paper entitled The Definitive Guide to Policy Management from Navex Global to be thought provoking and comprehensive.  Remember when reading it, however, it is a US based company with the US its biggest market which means that with the level of laws, regulation and litigation in the US, large organisations in that market have a different level of challenge to most Australian companies.

I am not a policy administration specialist, I do however know about decision-making.  So if decision-making in your organisation is in need of a cultural shift, please book a timeslot for a 15 or 30-minute one-on-one teleshare (a telecon with screen sharing) so we can explore your options. Book here or give me a call on (02) 9400 9702 to arrange a time.

 

Continue reading
Hits: 84 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

Food for Thought: Performance & Health - A New Management Lexicon?

I have long agreed with those in the investment community that argue analysts drive short-term thinking by managers of many publicly listed companies, which in the end destroys value. While reading this article by McKinsey entitled “Building the healthy corporation” I realised that many organisations are now fighting back.  McKinsey report that a number of firms have brought “Performance and health” into the corporate lexicon.  They explain further with:


“Just as people may seem reasonably well today but may not have the physical condition for the rigors of a long and active life, so too companies that are profitable in the short term may not have what it takes to perform well year after year.”

A good point they make is that most investors do highly value health as well as performance and that it appears the noisy few investment analysts are the ones that are often heard and reacted to.

The McKinsey list for a healthy corporate body:

•    Strategy
•    Metrics
•    Communication
•    Leadership
•    Governance

While you can argue a list like this until you are blue in the face, it is a sound list.  In my experience, the one management has pushed the least in the modern organisation is “Metrics”.  So many facets of an organisation are challenging to measure, however, if something is important it should be measured otherwise your subjective assessment of your performance will more likely be a long way off the mark. 

Metrics using hard data and proxies for hard data can and should be developed.  In my experience, once you get going with metrics, you will find the process somewhat intriguing and highly rewarding.

Call me on (02) 9400 9702 or email if you’d like to discuss methods for measuring the health of your organisation.

 

Continue reading
Hits: 81 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

Food for Thought: The Challenge of Digital Transformation – We are ignoring the root cause!

An MIT Sloan Management & Capgemini research study prompted this edition of Food for Thought.   The key theme – business leaders are lacking urgency when it comes to pursuing opportunities being afforded by technology.  This quote from the article sums it up best:

“There are two wrong ways to approach (digital transformation),” MIT’s George Westerman told us. “One is to say, ‘just go off and do something.  And we don’t need to worry about coordination.’  Another is to hire a bunch of people and say ‘make this happen.  I don’t need to be involved.’”

Now cast your minds back to the 1990s.  “Whoa, here comes a thing called the internet with this crazy email functionality!”  “What a cool name, placing an “e” in front!”.  What we have seen since are stories of boom and bust.

I found the article excellent in articulating the current problem and it provides many sound ways of addressing it, however, the article does not address the question of “why” the problem is there in the first place.  I can give you one very good reason, most senior management do not have sufficient understanding of technology – full stop.

Now here is the clincher for me.  Last week I had the pleasure of offering some mentoring advice to some undergraduate business students, the future accountants, bankers, marketers and yes, CEOs.  I asked them if their degree included a course on technology.  The answer:  “No”!

I ask you why, if technology has had the impact it has had in the past twenty years and the likes of MIT Sloan Management Review are able to so clearly depict the opportunities of the future, why are we not teaching our youngest and brightest about managing technology?  Yes they may be excellent users of technology (so was I twenty years ago), however, being an advanced user of Twitter or Google has nothing to do with the core skills required to lead organisations through the next twenty years of technological change.  Skills that from my perspective are still sadly lacking across Australian business.

If you agree or disagree I would love to read your comments on my blog.  If you want to hear more from me on the topic, email me with your question and I will do my best to answer it within a few days – bwhitefield@rmpartners.com.au.

Continue reading
Hits: 82 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

Food for Thought: Bridging Silos

Silos allow management and teams to focus, however, they also create barriers to collaboration and the flow of much needed information.  In this interview by McKinsey with Paolo Cederle, CEO of Milan-based UniCredit Business Integrated Solutions, Paolo outlines the business model UniCredit designed to move away from siloed thinking and provides some key insights into how they overcame many of the challenges the new organisational structure presented.  Some of those insights included:

1.    Matrix organisation guided via a governance layer.  The organisational structure is now defined by a matrix of business lines and banking and infrastructure service lines referred to as the “factory layer”.  Overlaying the matrix is a governance layer aimed at driving the integration of silos.

2.    Disruptive cultural change.  They recognised the culture change required was particularly disruptive as the new organisation required business and support people to work much more closely.  People with often very different skill sets and ways of doing things needed to meet and find a new common ground.

3.    Communication through technology.  As with any change, communication is key.  UniCredit used the latest in technology to drive the cultural shift.  This included manager blogs, webinars, PC-enabled video conferencing and the use of narrowcast videos.

4.    Management support.  They did not sit back and find out which managers rose to the top, they designed the governance layer to specifically support them to both understand their new role and to assist them to drive the transformation.

While I have long upheld that a good risk management framework breaks down silos, I fully recognise that breaking down these ingrained structures is a complex task and this interview highlights some key steps to take to manage the transition.

Continue reading
Hits: 80 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

Food for Thought: How technology slows the pace of change


I was listening to the radio just recently.  A caller was asked about something he had done that was a bit unusual and his answer was “Run a 14km fun run in a Gorilla suit with my best mate”.  Asked how wearing gorilla suits impacted their race time, his answer caught me and the radio host a bit by surprise.  They had been running in the gorilla suits every year for over ten years and their race time had become not just slower, it had become exponentially slower as each year had gone by.  The reason – technology!

What had technology done?  It had put a camera in the pockets of the masses.  Just about every runner in the race was carrying a smartphone with an A-Grade camera and they were snap-happy.  Being the polite gentlemen that they are, they could not refuse a request for a photo.

This got me thinking about how else technology slows us down.  Here is my hit list:

We wait for it patiently.  We wait for the next best thing and miss out on the short-term benefits from the “now” best thing.

We wait for it impatiently.  We fail to implement technology well and we wait until we get it right and way too often we wait and wait and wait.

We don’t wait for it, we grab it and we play with it.  This is the typical techo.  They can’t help themselves.  The technology is soooo cool, it has to be played with.

We don’t wait for it, we grab it, we play with it and we discard it way too soon.  This is the typical non-techo.  We grab the technology all starry-eyed with grand visions and we are soon disappointed because we didn’t meld the technology into our environment.  We just shoved it in.

For me this reinforces just how hard it is for designers to communicate to us about their technology and for us to assess it.  Irrespective can you all please keep designing and assessing, as without doubt, technology makes the world an incredibly interesting place!

 

Continue reading
Hits: 86 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

Food for Thought: Milestones are not the be all and end all

This article that I wrote last year for my “Food for Thought” series of emails fits perfectly with the TED Video of Sarah Lewis “Embrace the Near Win” that I posted in my Risk e-Views last Monday.  It reaffirms that we need to set achievable goals and celebrate when we tick them off as “DONE”.


I did a little research and found this whitepaper entitled “Recognize Achievements, Not Just Anniversaries”.  The authors recommend focusing on these five components of recognition:
  1. “Change the frequency of your milestone acknowledgement” – Gen Y can’t imagine ten and twenty-year tenures so think about 6, 12 and 18 months instead!

  2. “Provide meaningful reward choice” – Not everyone wants a gold watch.

  3. “Leverage the power of accumulation” – People like goals and accumulating recognition towards a major reward can be fulfilling for many.

  4. “Incorporate points-based, manager-to-employee and peer-to-peer recognition” – Allow accumulation of points towards rewards from a multitude of activities.

  5. “Tap into more motivational drives” – Psychology has come a long way and we now know a lot about how different kinds of people are motivated. We should tap into this knowledge in our program design.

Thus the authors advocate using within organisations what is already occurring in most sports.  A sports career is not judged on only a few milestones being achieved.  It is judged on a myriad of statistics that allows many more great players to be appreciated for different elements of their game.  It reminds us we have many strong people in organisations that make things happen behind the scenes who are not necessarily identified for the leaders that they are.  I am sure many of them reside in the risk profession!

 

Continue reading
Hits: 92 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

Food for Thought – BRW’s Fast 100

I came across an old copy of BRW Magazine which explores "What Australia's fastest growing companies have in common".  The article frequently uses the word resilience.  Resilient is to me what organisations become when they are good at managing risk.  I kept reading and was interested to learn the four common traits BRW identifies about the companies:

1.    They can spot a niche opportunity
2.    They are resilient against factors they can’t change
3.    They are happy to change, even to reinvent themselves, and
4.    They are quick to take advantage of change around them

It is interesting that when I talk about resilient companies I am often talking about companies like General Electric or Microsoft that have huge balance sheets and a major presence in their markets.  When I talk about the resilient quality of small businesses, on the other hand, I highlight their ability to move quickly – it is what allows them to survive and thrive.

Another difference between larger corporations and smaller businesses is risk appetite.  Although it hurts small business owners a lot when they fail, the truth is, they were a taking a gamble in the first place.  Managers of large organisations are not expected to gamble the whole business on one major play!  Essentially that is what each small business is doing on start-up and it is only when they become larger companies that they derive their resilience from strength in addition to agility.

For more on risk appetite check out my newsletter on the topic here and you can download a sample risk appetite statement here.  If you do, I would be interested in your feedback on the approach I take.  You can call me on (02) 9400 9702 or
email me at info@rmpartners.com.au.

 

Continue reading
Hits: 121 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

Food for Thought: The Napster, Amazon and Apple Missiles

This month's whitepaper is from the Harvard Business Review by Maxwell Wessel and Clayton M. Christensen and is titled "Surviving Disruption". (My thanks to a colleague for highlighting it for me - thanks David!) You can access the article by registering for free on the Harvard Business Review website here.

Wessel and Christensen use a modern variation on the runaway train: "Disruptive innovations are like missilies launched at your business". The paper highlights the missiles that were Napster, Amazon and the Apple Store aimed straight at record companies and the digital camera makers aimed squarely at Kodak. These are great examples of missiles that hit their targets relatively quickly, before missile defence systems could be raised or the missile dodged. Wessel and Christensen maintain that once a missile is fired, there is often time to raise our defences or dodge, duck and cover. Their examples include cinemas which have survived despite public access to movies in our lounge room soon after their release and ships traversing the globe despite the development of supersized aircraft.

Their tip for assessing how technologically advanced the missile is coming your way:

  • "Identify the strengths of your disrupter's business model;
  • Identify your own relative advantages;
  • Evaluate the conditions that would help or hinder the disrupter from co-opting your current advantages in the future."

In their article they go on to describe different ways of thinking about these issues including a modern spin on the old "barriers to entry" to an industry. They refer to an "ecosystem barrier" to describe a steady-state business environment where consumers and suppliers are operating comfortably with no real need to change.

Wessel and Christensen finish with a case study on the grocery industry stating: "The theory of disruption tells us that these entrants will speed their delivery times, increase their product selection, and add features we can hardly imagine today in pursuit of new customers and higher profit margins."

For you non-risk professionals out there, I hope this concept of disruptive innovation has got you thinking. I hope the same for you risk professionals and I also hope you are thinking about how this might apply for your next strategic risk workshop. I know I am. My client's industry is being "disrupted" by government policy changes and assessing and adapting to the disruption will be the name of the game.

Call me on (02) 9400 9702 or email info@rmpartners.com.au now to talk about how I can help with your current challenges in risk.

 

Continue reading
Hits: 112 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

Food for Thought: Mastering Inbox Fatigue

This whitepaper is a double edged sword for me. It covers a major cause of staff non-productivity - too many emails to get the real work done - which I am guilty of contributing to right now! The paper is by IDC and it is titled "The Future of Email is Social". In a nutshell it covers:

  • The foundations of email which continue to be its strength today
  • A comprehensive description of the growing email challenge which includes its impact on staff productivity and its inefficiency in knowledge sharing and transfer when compared to social media
  • How vendors of email software are increasingly bringing the core benefits of social media software into their email program offerings
  • The outstanding challenge for enterprise systems providers to include "context" into the functionality. That is auto filtering out or auto adding in information to a conversation by email, instant messaging or while collaborating online, through one's location, job role, project responsibilities, personal development needs, interests and of course expertise

For me the paper highlights the need for risk professionals to be cognisant of the impact of email

 

Continue reading
Hits: 102 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

Risk Leadership: Driving Cultural Change through Engagement

So many people that  I meet for the first time from outside the risk profession have a very poor perception of risk management as a discipline.  They see it as a compliance activity at best and most see it as a handbrake on business.  Recently my wife described me to a new acquaintance as one of the fathers of modern risk management and the person turned to me and said, “So you are to blame!”

You and I know the value of risk management.  You also know that in your organisation there are still swathes of key influencers who see risk as a compliance activity.

Adding to this, you are in a situation that because risk is still seen as compliance and a cost to business, the resources you have available to you are more than just limited, they are pretty scarce. 

If you are in agreement with me so far, then ask yourself this: “What do I need to do differently?”

I’ll give you three tips:

  1. Ask yourself (better still, ask others) “How engaging am I?” and rate yourself on a scale from 0 (that politician that was leader of the opposition for a while a few years back) to 10 (Richard Branson, Virgin).  If you don’t score at least an 8 out of 10 the truth is you will struggle to get your message across as there are so many barriers.  Check out my paper entitled “Risk Leaderhip: How to be Heard” for some tips on self-improvement.  

  2. Target the senior executive – If they have not listened to you so far and you figure your self-improvement plan will take some time, ask yourself, who will they listen to now?

  3. Create a team of Risk Champions – see my previous writings on this challenge in Risk e-Views Volume 11, here.

 

Continue reading
Recent Comments - Show all comments
  • Bryan says #
    Thanks Paula for your comments Yes, I fully agree with getting out there and engaging. Just like they say to a salesperson, "you
  • Paula V. Smith says #
    I agree that the risk manager will not be effective working in isolation and yielding to the common, negative perception that a ri
Hits: 204 2 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

Since Darwin’s Origin of the Species we have recognised how nature adapts to survive.  Modern humankind continues to adapt to survive while following these two innate risk management principles:

•    If it hurts us we learn and take action in proportion to the degree of pain.

•    The next time we face the same pain we are better prepared and we go back for more and either avoid the pain or at least find a way of working to a new pain threshold.

Why history keeps repeating itself is simple really.  It is the passage of time.  The more frequent the pain, the faster we learn. The less frequent the pain, the slower we learn.  In corporate life the pain that lives strongest in the corporate memory is the pain we work hard to avoid.  Take the process Disney follows to avoid being sued for breach of Intellectual Property.

A colleague told me he wrote a book and sent it to Disney indicating it could be a great movie.  They sent it back unopened with a letter saying they did not open it and won’t read it – full stop.  Early on, Disney was sued for breach of copyright and this one sticks very strongly in the corporate memory.

The point is, history does repeat itself because the really big lessons have very long periods of time between events and we forget. 

A really great Enterprise Risk Management program recognises all risks need to be managed all of the time in proportion to the risk they pose to the organisation. 

Does yours?

Take the RMP Online Healthcheck here and your score will give you an idea of how well you have progressed. (At least in my opinion!)

Continue reading
Tagged in: Healthcheck
Hits: 221 0 Comments
0

Posted by on in Risk Management

I have long agreed with those in the investment community that argue analysts drive short-term thinking by managers of many publicly listed companies, which in the end destroys value. While reading this article by McKinsey entitled “Building the healthy corporation” I realised that many organisations are now fighting back.  McKinsey report that a number of firms have brought “Performance and health” into the corporate lexicon.  They explain further with:


“Just as people may seem reasonably well today but may not have the physical condition for the rigors of a long and active life, so too companies that are profitable in the short term may not have what it takes to perform well year after year.”


A good point they make is that most investors do highly value health as well as performance and that it appears the noisy few investment analysts are the ones that are often heard and reacted to.


The McKinsey list for a healthy corporate body:


•    Strategy
•    Metrics
•    Communication
•    Leadership
•    Governance


While you can argue a list like this until you are blue in the face, it is a sound list.  In my experience, the one management has pushed the least in the modern organisation is “Metrics”.  So many facets of an organisation are challenging to measure, however, if something is important it should be measured otherwise your subjective assessment of your performance will more likely be a long way off the mark. 


Metrics using hard data and proxies for hard data can and should be developed.  In my experience, once you get going with metrics, you will find the process somewhat intriguing and highly rewarding.

Continue reading
Hits: 258 0 Comments
0

My Tweets

Subscribe to RMP Newsletter
Download our white paper
healthcheck-ad
Linkedin Twitter
Live chat by BoldChat