Answer:-
What are the key ERM implementation factors?
There are many factors to consider for the successful
implementation of ERM solutions across an organization. Our top ten
key takeaways help focus on what matters most:
- As a first step, establish a strong foundational understanding
of risk and risk management, and agree upon the definition of ERM
so that everyone can be aligned.
- Identify and create a position statement on the organization’s
approach to risk to effectively communicate with external
parties.
- Establish a culture that is aware of risk and open to change.
Think of this culture made up of three parts: (1) a genuine “tone
at the top” with leadership, (2) the right “mood in the middle” and
(3) “boots at the base” to get change done.
- Eliminate the fear of retribution for people raising risks. It
isn’t easy to expose weak spots, but creating an open space can
lead to empowerment and change.
- Take stock of existing risk management processes and leverage
them. It’s ok to start with a small base and expand over time.
- Select an ERM lead or team with a cross-cutting view to define
objectives and ensure there is consistency in how risks are scored
and activity is communicated efficiently to leadership.
- Utilize technology to increase transparency on risk
information, so that it can be viewed and understood by others
across different areas of the organization.
- Employees who have ownership of the risk should be responsible
for the risk profile, not the Chief Risk Officer or ERM group.
- Share risk information any time a decision is presented to
senior management.
- Lastly, don’t let the pursuit of perfection get in the way of
action.
Once an organization decides to go for Enterprise Risk
Management, the challenge is the implementation. At the ground
level there are lots of considerations in successful implementation
of the same. These considerations vary with the organizations;
however the following more or less remain the same:
- ERM Champion: First and foremost, considering
the challenges an individual is to be selected in the organization
that spearheads the initiative. He or she is often called as the
chief risk officer (CRO), who either reports to the chief executive
officer or the chief financial officer. Next the CRO is now
provided with a staff. The whole department should be enabled to
act as a change agent and is equally accountable to the top
management.
- Incorporating ERM into Organizational Culture:
Traditionally risks facing each function or department were taken
care of the department heads. There was no such person as the Chief
Risk Officer specially deployed for Risk Management of the
organization. The finance department looked after financial risks,
informational technology looked after operational risks, and
marketing department took care of strategic risk and the like. Most
importantly they reported to different heads, used different
procedures, tools and strategies. Even the calibration was
different. Successful ERM implementation requires a revamp that may
cause the above mentioned to become defensive. There is thus a need
for coordinating different departments, educating them and
promoting them for more initiative and cooperation.
- Risk Assessment: This is typically the second
stage in risk management cycle. Visible risks are easier to deal
with or one can have a plan at least to deal with them but risks
that are not visible or cannot be identified are the ones that are
often the source of greatest problems. For example, no one could
have thought of risks like the criminal tampering of products in
pharmaceutical industry! In risk assessment the challenge is to
identify and contemplate of such unthinkable events.
- Quantifying Strategic and Operational Risk:
Physical hazard and financial risk are easy to quantify but what
about risks that are intangible. For a situation where there is
inappropriate application of knowledge leads to a knowledge risk.
Similarly an operational inefficiency that goes unnoticed for long
can lead to production deficit. These are risks that are difficult
to estimate in terms of their likelihood and degree of impact. Such
risks can be better dealt with qualitative analysis to determine
the relative possibility of occurrence.
- Integrating Various Kinds of Risk: It is often
very difficult to determine the exact relationship between various
kinds of risks. Past relationships may mislead when considering
future trends. It is however better to build structural models that
permits improvement in corresponding stage over time.
- Lack of Appropriate Risk Transfer Mechanism:
Although there are appropriate risk transfer mechanism available
but they are often inadequate. Capital and reinsurance markets, for
example, are not adequate to support an organization in its risk
transferring mechanism. These markets need due evolution in terms
of products and services with time. In case of operational and
strategic risk the transfer mechanism is even more
inappropriate.
- Monitoring the Process: Finally the ERM needs
to be monitored on a continual basis. Successful ERM needs reports
and comparisons to last risk assessments. Strategies need to be
reworked with the changing risk environment.