Risk Avoidance – is that all there is?

risk-avoidanceBusiness Week ran an article recently, stating that risk avoidance needs to be injected into employees’ thought processes, since “avoiding crises in the first place is obviously far better than having to endure the costly and disruptive consequences of dealing with such events.” I find that interesting. Risk Management is about so much more than just avoidance. In fact, there are three more ways that risk can be managed.

Risk Management Strategies

Risk reflects both the range of possible outcomes and the probabilities for each of the outcomes. A commonly used method for risk analysis is to plot unforeseen or unwanted events in a so-called risk matrix. This can be done qualitatively, where probabilities and impacts are subjective values, e.g. low/high and minor/major, or quantitatively, where probabilities and impacts are objective values, e.g. incident frequency and cost in monetary units.  The simplest form of risk management then uses this matrix to discern four possible management strategies, illustrated in the figure below:

  • Avoid, in case of high probability/high impact
  • Transfer, in case of high probability/low impact
  • Reduce, in case of low probability/high impact
  • Accept or Retain, in case of low probability/low impact

risk-matrix



Avoid-risks are risks that no business can survive in the long run, if left unattended. That is why these risks need to be avoided. Transfer-risks are not as critical as the aforementioned, but still warrant attention due to their potential disastrous impacts. Transfer means pooling or sharing risks, and insurance is one central element here. Reduce-risks often relate to day-to-day issues and operational events, and although perhaps insignificant on their own, the aggregate impact of these risks can eventually compromise operational efficiency.

Risk Ignorance

The opposite of risk avoidance is risk ignorance. More often than not businesses simply accept that they are exposed to risks and do not bother to spend much effort on assessing and mitigating these risks, regardless of which category these risks fall into. I am not sure whether I should call this to accept risk, since it is more like to willingly ignore risk, as said in the article in BusinessWeek:

Despite these high stakes, many corporations do not have a consistent or disciplined approach to risk management and accountability for product safety. That is a mistake. It is critical for businesses to consider how to reduce risk with such measures as a systematic application of “lessons learned,” or undertaking a review of the critical decision-making processes involved in producing a product.

It remains to be seen whether businesses will actually learn their lesson or not.

Links

Related

Posted in THIS and THAT
Tags:

ARTICLES and PAPERS
Risk Analysis of Critical Infrastructures
The vulnerability of critical infrastructures is a recurring theme on this blog, and today's article[...]
Transportation - the forgotten staple
What a difference a title makes. I only found this article because it was referenced in another arti[...]
BOOKS and BOOK CHAPTERS
SME Risk Management
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) make up the majority of enterprises in most countries, and[...]
Book Review: Supply Chain Risk Management
This excellent book by Donald Waters, Supply Chain Risk Management: Vulnerability and Resilience in [...]
REPORTS and WHITEPAPERS
Critical Infrastructure and Resilience
What happens when a business is disabled for a length of time? What are the impacts on its profitabi[...]
Analysing road vulnerability in Norway
How does the Norwegian Public Roads Administration NRPA assess the vulnerability of the Norwegian ro[...]