7-10 paper assignment related to crises management

User Generated

Fcrpvny_qvnzbaq

Writing

Description

The purpose of this assignment is to apply concepts reflected in the course text (Hopkin's book) and other literature sources to evaluate and recommend a course of action based upon your risk assessment in the scenario described below.

Hopkin provides an overview of the 4 T’s of Hazard Response in Chapter 15.Create a scenario that clearly identifies a setting that shows risk potential.Then, apply the 4T model to that scenario.For example, a large rock concert, Presidential visit or the like.Based upon your assessment of the scenario, develop a recommendation paper to a supervisor (your choice) showing organizational risk.

The topic: I prefer the topic to be about a rock concert or any other type of mass gathering type of concerts.

The paper should be 7 – 10 pages long.The following format is recommended.

Title: The 4 T Analysis of ____________ (name of your scenario).

Abstract:One paragraph on the second page; tells what the paper is about

Introduction:

Address the following elements from the model as they relate to your analysis of the model:

  • Tolerate
  • Treat
  • Transfer
  • Terminate

Recommendations:Present what you consider to be the major recommendations that upper management should recognize as important and that should be implemented.Include evidence in the literature as indicated in any of the sections of your paper.

Significance:Describe the “lessons learned” and implications for risk management.

Important notes:

- Please use proper APA format for in-line citation and references

- The paper must be 7-10 papers (first page and references page are not included)

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Hopkin, P., & Institute of Risk Management. (2010). Fundamentals of risk management: Chapter 15 Library Back Go to Аа ili O Table 11.1 provides a summary of the main risk classification systems. These are the COSO, IRM standard, BS 31100 and the FIRM risk scorecard. There are similarities in most of these systems. It should be noted that identifying risks as: 1) hazard, control or opportunity; 2) high, medium or low; and 3) short term, medium term and long term should not be considered to be formal risk classification systems. Many organizations struggle to find a suitable risk classification system. Often, this is because there is insufficient attention paid to the nature of the risks that are being classified. The bow-tie representation of the risk management process illustrates that it is possible to classify risks according to their source, the component of the organization that the event impacts and the impact and/or consequences of the risk materializing. Short-, medium- and long-term classification of risks represents the operational, tactical and strategic risks faced by the organization. The categories of disruption to organizations described in Table 3.2 uses a classification system according to the component of the organization that is impacted. This is the people, premises, processes and products (4Ps)risk classification system. The FIRM risk scorecard described in Table 11.2 classifies risks according to their impact. TABLE 11.1 Risk classification systems Quantifiable Usually Sometimes Not always Yes Measurement Gains and Level of Nature of Income from (performance losses from efficiency in publicity and commercial indicator) internal processes and effectiveness of and market financial operations marketing activities control profile Performance Procedures Process Perception Presence gap Failure of Failure of Failure to Failure to procedures to processes to achieve the achieve control internal operate without desired required financial risks disruption perception presence in the marketplace Control Capex Process control Marketing Strategic and mechanisms standards Loss control Advertising business Internal control Insurance and Reputation and plans Delegation of risk financing brand protection Opportunity authority assessment Standard or framework cosO ERM IRM standard FIRM risk scorecard Classification headings Strategic Financial Financial Operations Strategic Infrastructure Reporting Operational Reputational Compliance Hazard Marketplace TABLE 11.2 Attributes of the FIRM risk scorecard There are similarities in the way that risks are classified by the different risk classification systems. However, there are also differences, including the fact that operational risk is referred to as infrastructure risk in the FIRM risk scorecard. Coso takes a narrow view of financial risk, with particular emphasis on reporting. The different systems have been devised in different circumstances and by different organizations; therefore, the categories will be similar but not identical. In describing different risk classification systems, Table 11.1 illustrates that many classification systems offer a combination of source, event, impact and consequences categories. British Standard BS 31100 sets out the advantages of having a risk classification system. These benefits include helping to define the scope of risk management in the organization, providing a structure and framework for risk identification, and giving the opportunity to aggregate similar kinds of risks across the whole organization. ISO 31000 does not suggest a risk classification system. In summary, examples of the advantages of having a risk classification system, include: • Accumulations of risk that could undermine a key dependency or business objective and make it vulnerable can be more easily identified. • Responsibility for improved management of each different type of risk can Description Financial Infrastructure Reputational Marketplace Risks that can Risks that will Risks that will Risks that impact the way impact the level impact desire of will impact in which money of efficiency and customers to the level of is managed and dysfunction deal or trade and customer profitability is within the core level of customer trade or achieved processes retention expenditure Internal Internal External External Internal or external risk 31% Page 135 of 462 • Location 3329 of 11078 Library Back Go to Аа ili a be more easily identified/allocated if risks are classified. • Decisions and knowledge about the type of control(s) that will be implemented can be taken on a more structured and informed basis. Circumstances where the risk appetite of the organization is being exceeded (or the risk criteria not being implemented) can be more readily identified. á The British Standard states that the number and type of risk categories employed should be selected to suit the size, purpose, nature, complexity and context of the organization. The categories should also reflect the maturity of risk management within the organization. Perhaps the most commonly used risk classification systems are those offered by the COSO ERM framework and by the IRM risk management standard. However, the COSO risk classification system is not always helpful and it contains several weaknesses. For example, strategic risks may also be present in operations and in reporting and compliance. Despite these weaknesses, the COSO framework is in widespread use, because it is the recognized and recommended approach for compliance with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It is worth noting that the COSO ERM framework (2004) is the broader version of Coso, and it also includes the requirements of the recently updated Coso Internal Control framework (2013). The reporting component of the Coso internal control framework is specifically concerned with the accuracy of the reporting of financial data and is designed to fulfil the requirements of section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The features of the FIRM risk scorecard are set out in Table 11.2. Financial and infrastructure risks are considered to be internal to the organization, while reputational and marketplace risks are external. Also, financial and marketplace risks can be easily quantified in financial terms, whereas infrastructure and reputational risks are more difficult to quantify. The inclusion of reputational risks as a separate category of risk in the FIRM risk scorecard is not universally accepted. It is sometimes argued that damage to reputation is a consequence of other risks materializing and should not be considered as a separate risk category. However, if a broader view of risk is taken, it becomes obvious that reputation is vitally important. This is particularly important when organizations are seeking to use their brand name to enter additional markets, or achieve brand stretch' as it is sometimes called. In any case, there is a wider argument that all risks are a consequence of broader business decisions. Adopting a particular strategy, undertaking a project and/or continuing with established operations all involve risks. If the organization did not undertake these strategic, tactical or operational activities, risks would not be present. PESTLE risk classification system FIRM risk scorecard The four headings of the FIRM risk scorecard offer a classification system for the risks to the key dependencies in the organization. The classification system also reflects the idea that every organization should be concerned about its finances, infrastructure, reputation and marketplace success. In order to give a broader scope to commercial success, the headings of the FIRM risk scorecard are as follows: Table 11.3 provides an outline of the PESTLE risk classification system. PESTLE is an acronym that stands for political, economic, sociological, technological, legal and ethical risks. In some versions of the approach, the final E is used to indicate narrower environmental considerations. This risk classification system is most applicable to the analysis of hazard risks and is less easy to apply to financial, infrastructure and reputational risks. The PESTLE risk classification system is often seen as most relevant to the analysis of external risks. External risk in this context is intended to refer to the external context that is not wholly within the control of the organization but where action can be taken to mitigate the risks. It is often suggested that the PESTLE risk classification system should be used in conjunction with an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) facing the organization. A SWOT analysis of each of the six PESTLE categories is recommended by the Orange Book. The advantage of the PESTLE risk classification system is that it provides a clear analysis of the issues that should be addressed within the external context. The PESTLE approach may be most applicable in the public sector, F Financial; I Infrastructure; R Reputational; M Marketplace. 31% Page 137 of 462 . Location 3388 of 11078
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Fin...


Anonymous
I use Studypool every time I need help studying, and it never disappoints.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags