This is a series on the risk manager’s role in strategic planning. In parts 1/6 – 3/6, I listed risk methodologies, reviewed mission statement examples, and addressed the question “What is an environmental scan?” – all to establish context.
Here I address reasons for poor risk assessment and the importance of risk facilitation skills.
Interviews are a common method of risk ID; surveys are also popular, and economy of scale of effort, in particular, recommends them. However, these two techniques commonly encounter methodological problems that invalidate their results.
I believe one reason for the use of interviews is that senior management and executive do not see a risk identification group session as worthy of their time. Organizations beginning an Enterprise Risk Management program will administer, if not interviews, then a survey to get the so-called “top 10 risks”. What can happen is that people responding to both interview and survey questions use very different language, frames of reference, time lines and definitions of risk. The shifting assumptions are not detected when the information is collected and aggregated.
The results of such risk surveys and interviews are not very compelling, and end up on a shelf. I have posted an introductory presentation on how to do risk assessment which quotes 5 studies from 2008 – 2009 in which firms of all types lament their poor risk assessment capability. Here is a screen shot:
I wrote a piece for Canadian Underwriter coming out in September on yet more similar findings in 2010. Essentially, information collected without rigorous risk methodology is not worth the effort.
Risk identification must be done in such a wide variety of contexts. Interviews and surveys (if well designed) will continue to be useful. But in many respects, a facilitated round table of subject matter experts is preferred, and it is an important competency for risk managers.
The benefits of a structured discussion with a measured degree of free interaction – provided you establish the context – are quite amazing. As one client remarked, “People need to hear others’ views of risk around common issues.” This is particularly helpful in contexts where you are trying to achieve consensus in complex and controversial topics. I wrote piece back in 2006 for Risk Management Magazine with a case study of the risk facilitation process.
Formal training in facilitation is good preparation, especially if the subject matter is highly controversial or emotionally charged. If you can chair a meeting and lead a group through a complex agenda, that’s a good start. The crucial difference is that you are carrying out an ordered method, and must meet its requirements.
At the beginning of this series of posts, we listed methods: business continuity and emergency planning; innovation; high quality risk ID and assessment, and risk scenarios. These activities are scarcely possible as solitary research or surveys; they require group sessions. I believe the risk practitioner can facilitate such processes, and transfer this skill to other managers to build organizational capacity.
The next post compares and contrasts two essential risk methodologies: risk ID and assessment, and future scenarios planning.