Teaching Risk and Crisis Management. What has changed between 1999 and today?
Jan 30th, 2014
Teaching Risk and Crisis Management. What has changed
In a few months Riskope will celebrate another important anniversary.
In 2012 we celebrated two decades of risk and crisis management, decision making support and consulting.
In spring 2014 we will reach fifteen years of specialized courses and seminars on the same subject.
As we found in our archives the Table of Content of the course we were giving at University of British Columbia (continuous education) UBC in 1999 we decided to compare it with our 2013 world-wide tour course.
University of British Columbia, Risk and Crisis Management Courses Table of Content
At first sight the Table of Content seem quite similar: we were already talking about the connection between risk and crisis management, risk acceptability, public perception, complex consequences, holistic scenarios etc. Actually, many of the subjects we treated were included ten years later (2009) in ISO 31000. FMEA, HAZOP, FTA, RCA, PPA were and continue to be, to this date, the core of common practices in Risk Assessment. Many of these tools have been included in ISO 31010.
So, it come spontaneous to ask what has changed in these fifteen years? The changes may be difficult to spot, but they are very significant. Here is a “partial” list:
- Tolerance/acceptability have become “a science” at Riskope (NB: ISO 31000 and many authors “talk” about tolerance, but do not discuss how to develop it in “real” life). We have developed rational models, proven and calibrated them over hundred of real life case studies. In our courses we teach the principles, but at Riskope we have an application that allows us to build a tolerance threshold for any company, any project, no matter the size, the risk averseness or appetite management has.
- Over the years we have understood how important it is to focus on the architecture of the hazard/risk register, to avoid double counting, to provide detailed understanding of the risk landscape of any corporate/project. The architecture of the risk register is part of the know-how that has enabled Riskope to develop Optimum Risk Estimates (ORE), our flagship product. We deploy ORE for all our clients who require a 360-view, deep understanding of their risk environment. With ORE deployment they get a focused mitigation roadmap and acquire a distinct competitive edge over their peers. In our courses we teach the principles of this architecture.
- In the last decade or so it has become obvious that common practice risk assessment systematically underestimate the consequences of potential mishaps. In our courses we explain how holistic consequences can be evaluated and included in a risk assessment avoiding the “paralysis by analysis” syndrome.
- We have become more and more involved into clearly and rationally defining all the terms we use for lack of clarity and confusion have shown to be the source of horrendous corporate overspending. Terms like “strategic”, “manageable/ unmanageable”, “credible” etc. are now clearly defined and correspond to concrete and reproducible situations.
- Due to the stronger influence of emerging risks, climate changes we have introduced a strong chapter on Force Majeure, as these clauses, present in all commercial contracts actually do represent a significant risk to all involved parties.
You can see examples of past and upcoming courses here or get a customized program in place here.
Tagged with: complex consequences, credible, crisis management, FMEA, Force Majeure, FTA, HAZOP, holistic scenarios, ISO 31000, PPA, public perception, RCA, risk, risk acceptability, “manageable/ unmanageable”, “strategic”
Category: Consequences, Crisis management, Hazard, Probabilities, Risk analysis, Risk management, Tolerance/Acceptability