Showing posts with label risk management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label risk management. Show all posts

Monday, 10 June 2013

Audit faces increasing pressures - http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-compliance-consultants/audit-faces-increasing-pressures/

http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-compliance-consultants/audit-faces-increasing-pressures/


Compliance ConsultantAudit faces increasing pressures: opportunities to anticipate and address challenges to increase trust and stability.


 


Extract from Protiviti - Joel Kramer, MIS Training Institute:


New regulations, technologies and risks are upon us. The business environment is continuously changing, but changes these days may be happening faster than ever before. Internal audit’s responsibilities have been growing just as fast, and they are expected to keep growing as new challenges emerge.


With this in mind, we asked participants in two separate panel discussions I moderated at a MIS SuperStrategies conference what they think will be the greatest challenges internal audit leaders will face over the next three to five years. We also asked how such challenges could be effectively addressed. The participants were internal audit executives from the Metropolitan Transit Authority of New York, U.S. House of Representatives, Vanguard Group, Protiviti Inc., Clear Channel Communications, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Talbots Inc., Georgia-Pacific LLC, and Coca-Cola Co.


Participants stressed that they have noticed the rate of change in the profession is so rapid that some risks (and their impacts) have substantially changed in the recent past. They also noted, almost universally, that chief audit executives (CAEs) are being asked to do more audits and address more risks without commensurate increases in resources.


More … http://www.knowledgeleader.com/KnowledgeLeader/Content.nsf/Web+Content/HIInternalAuditRatchetsupforaDemandingFuture!OpenDocument


(c) Copyright Protiviti Inc. 2013. EOE All Rights Reserved

Thursday, 16 May 2013

Latest Protiviti SOX survey show growing reliance on internal audit functions and control automation - http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-compliance-consultants/latest-protiviti-sox-survey-show-growing-reliance-on-internal-audit-functions-and-control-automation/

http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-compliance-consultants/latest-protiviti-sox-survey-show-growing-reliance-on-internal-audit-functions-and-control-automation/


Compliance ConsultantLatest Protiviti SOX survey: key trends show growing reliance on internal audit functions and control automation.


 


Extract from Protiviti Press Release:


Demand for added attention to high-risk processes, growing costs and the increasing role of IT controls and testing reports are some of the key changes and challenges companies faced over the last year as they worked to meet Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) requirements, according to findings in the 2013 Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance Survey (www.protiviti.com/soxsurvey) by global consulting firm Protiviti (www.protiviti.com).


When executives and professionals involved in SOX compliance were asked what was driving the most change in their SOX compliance processes, 66 percent said there was at least moderate change due to demand for increasing process and control documentation for high-risk processes. Additionally, 60 percent of respondents indicated that the increased amount of time required for walkthroughs and documentation around processes was also driving moderate change.


“To continue to improve their SOX compliance efforts, companies need to intensify their scrutiny of high-risk processes such as financial reporting, accrual processes, stock options and equity, and taxes,” said Brian Christensen, Protiviti’s executive vice president for global internal audit. “The study shows that companies are beginning to adjust in that direction and the shift aligns with guidance from the SEC and PCAOB.”


“It’s important to note that SOX compliance programs and processes should remain agile and ready to change course if public companies are to adhere to the law in an effective and cost-efficient manner,” said Christensen. “As demonstrated by regulators, providers of ongoing guidance (e.g. COSO) and rapidly changing business conditions, the achievement of sustainable, cost-effective and value-enhancing compliance processes remains an ongoing journey that requires continual vigilance.”


With regard to the new COSO internal control framework, nearly two-thirds (66 percent) of the Protiviti survey respondents were aware of the revision process. Not surprisingly, the vast majority (85 percent) were against early implementation in 2013. If given an adoption option, respondents were fairly evenly split across several potential implementation schedules, including fiscal year 2014 and adoption after 2014.


Shifting Responsibility to the Internal Audit Function


Year-over-year findings about which area within an organization is responsible for overseeing SOX compliance showed a sizeable shift toward the internal audit function and away from project management. In 2012, the survey found that 30 percent of organizations housed this responsibility with the internal audit function, while 25 percent handled SOX compliance through their project management office. However, in this year’s survey, 45 percent of respondents said internal auditing managed SOX compliance (up 15 percent), while only 10 percent said it was handled by project management (down 15 percent).


One reason for this shift is the willingness of external auditors to rely on the work of internal audit departments rather than other functions. In 2013, only 25 percent of respondents said there was an increase in external auditors’ reliance on documentation, walkthroughs and testing performed outside of the internal audit function, while 39 percent said there was an increase from external auditors in having the same work done by internal audit departments.


Additional Survey Findings


Other key findings from Protiviti’s 2013 Sarbanes Oxley Compliance Survey include:


1. Eighty percent of respondents indicating they have seen improvements in internal control over financial reporting structure since Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404(b) was first required for large accelerated and accelerated filers in 2004. This is especially true for large accelerated filers, with 87 percent saying there have been improvements


2. More than one-third of companies (38 percent) reporting a year-over-year increase (from 2011 to 2012) in SOX costs. Nearly half of the companies surveyed (47 percent) also reported a year-over-year increase in external audit fees during the same period. That said, on average the costs for SOX compliance are not extraordinarily high relative to the objective of quality financial reporting to investors through improved internal controls. For most organizations, the cost of SOX compliance remains at a manageable level


3. Automation of controls continues to be an area of increased focus, with 90 percent of companies surveyed this year indicating that they have plans to automate IT processes and controls for SOX compliance, up from 83 percent in 2012


About the Survey:  In its fourth edition, Protiviti’s 2013 Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance Survey gathered insights from 297 executives and professionals at companies with gross annual revenues ranging from less than $100 million to more than $20 billion. The survey was conducted in late 2012 and early 2013, and respondents included chief audit executives, chief financial officers, corporate Sarbanes-Oxley and Project Management Office leaders, chief compliance officers and others involved with SOX. The survey is available for complimentary download at: www.protiviti.com/soxsurvey.


About Protiviti


Protiviti (www.protiviti.com)is a global consulting firm that helps companies solve problems in finance, technology, operations, governance, risk and internal audit. Through its network of more than 70 offices in over 20 countries, Protiviti has served more than 35 percent of FORTUNE 1000® and FORTUNE Global 500® companies. The firm also works with smaller, growing companies, including those looking to go public, as well as with government agencies.


More … http://www.protiviti.com/SOXsurvey

Friday, 3 May 2013

International risk standard ISO 31000 implementation guide coming in September - http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-risk-management-consultants/international-risk-standard-iso-31000-implementation-guide-coming-in-september/

http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-risk-management-consultants/international-risk-standard-iso-31000-implementation-guide-coming-in-september/


businesscontinuityminiInternational risk standard ISO 31000 implementation guide coming in September: changes to standard coming later.


 


Extract from Commercial Risk Europe – Ben Norris:



A guide to help risk managers and other professionals implement international risk management standard ISO 31000 is set for publication this September and is likely to be followed by changes to the standard itself, a leading player involved in both processes told risk managers yesterday.



Speaking at the RIMS conference in Los Angeles, Dorothy Gjerdrum, Executive Director, Arthur J Gallagher RM Services and ISO 31000 US TAG Chair, predicted that there will soon be changes made to ISO 31000 following a vote that closes on June 18.


As is general practice in the standards world, ISO 31000 is up for review following its publication in 2009 and based on feedback from risk practitioners Ms Gjerdrum believes there is a need for update and revision.


“The question first is do we need a review and that is being asked right now. We believe because of the conversations that we have had that everyone will agree that we need to revisit this,” said Ms Gjerdrum, who is a member of the ISO 31000 International Working Group.


“There are a variety of reasons about why that is. I know some of the issues were given short shrift the first time though and we may want to spend time expanding or qualifying those areas. Some of those have to do with risk appetite and fully developing criteria. How we are going to do that is not yet clear. I hope in the US we can run some surveys ­as we need more input,” she said.


For his part, Michael Miller, Director, Risk Assessment & Mitigation at The Walt Disney Company and ISO 31000 US TAG Delegate, said that any changes to the standard would need to be carefully thought out. Not least because of concern over the amount of potential change amongst those that have already implemented the standard.


“Certain groups or companies have already implemented 31000 so there is a little bit of concern over how much is going to change. ISO understands that this is an active standard and not something that is going to peter out now we might rebuild it. Every few years you do need to do a quick check in and ask is it current? Do we need to modify it in any way? Yes or no, and then you take action. But discussions have taken place and people understand that 31000 is implemented across the world and any major changes would need to be considered because of their impact,” he said.


It seem likely that changes to ISO 31000 will come as a result of misgivings held by some organisations, risk professionals and other decision makers over the standard.


It is certainly clear from the forthcoming implementation guide that, following its publication, some practitioners sought further advice on how to implement the standard.


The ISO 31000 International Working Group re-engaged in 2011 to address this need and in March 2013 risk management experts from around the world met in the US to complete the draft of ISO 31004, or the implementation guide to ISO 31000.


ISO 31004 is set for publication in September and is in the final stages of development. It is approved as a Technical Report rather than a standard and therefore should be regarded more as advice and guidance, said Ms Gjerdrum.


Its purpose is twofold. Firstly, to help organisations align their risk management with ISO 31000 by providing guidance, explanation, examples and illustrations. Secondly, it is designed to assist standards-making organisations so that they can harmonise risk management processes with ISO 31000.


It will be suitable for use by any public, private or community enterprise and association, group or individual. The Technical Report is not specific to any industry or sector.


It can be applied to all types and sizes of organisations, their stakeholders and to all activities, explained the ISO insiders. It can also be applied to any type of risk, whatever its nature, whether having positive or negative consequences.


ISO 31004 will have four Annexes that offer guidance for implementation. These annexes focus on application of the ISO 31000 principles, how to evidence mandate and commitment, and how to monitor, review and integrate risk management within a management system.


Annex A, Application Of The ISO 31000 Principles, will provide direction on how to apply each of the standard’s 11 principles and provide practical tips, explained Ms Gjerdrum.


Annex B, How To Evidence Mandate And Commitment To ISO 31000, gives guidance and examples to help with characteristics, policy and reinforcement.


It will provide specific questions to help check that mandate and commitment is as strong as it could be. But the annex is not prescriptive and stresses that there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach, explained the risk professional.


Annex C, How To Give Effect To Monitoring and Review, provides a general explanation and considers accountability, the use of independent reviews and how best to monitor and review the framework and process.


Finally Annex D, Integrating Risk Management With A Management System, will provide useful tips and helpful tools to get this job done.


More … http://www.commercialriskeurope.com/cre/2224/56/Changes-to-ISO-31000-on-horizon-implementation-guide-due-in-months/

Wednesday, 24 April 2013

Evidence of severe financial contagion risk from weaker countries - http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-strategy-implementation-consultants/evidence-of-severe-financial-contagion-risk-from-weaker-countries/

http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-strategy-implementation-consultants/evidence-of-severe-financial-contagion-risk-from-weaker-countries/


portfoliomanagementminiNew research shows unexpected evidence of severe financial contagion risk from weaker countries in European Union.


 


Extract from University of Portsmouth Press Release – 16 April 2013:


Financial shocks coming from weak Euro zone countries are three times more likely to destabilise the region’s economies than shocks from richer Euro zone countries, according to new research.


Research by Dr Nikolaos Antonakakis, an applied Economist at Portsmouth Business School, is among the first to find compelling – and unexpected – evidence of a severe financial contagion risk from weaker countries in the European Union.


The results challenge the arguments for a single European currency and suggest a need to re-examine the single currency in the new post-economic crisis era.


Dr Antonakakis said: “The findings highlight the increased vulnerability of the Euro zone from the destabilising shocks originating from beleaguered countries in the periphery.


“This is the first study to have found evidence of a financial contagion effect where what happens in weaker Euro zone countries spills over to the rest of the region. Most people assume the effect is the other way around. It is counter-intuitive and suggests there is probably a need to reassess the effectiveness of the EU directorate economic policies.”


Dr Antonakakis studied the difference between the 10-year government bond yields  of nine euro zone countries – Austria, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain – between March 2007 and June 2012; a turbulent period encompassing both the global financial crisis and the Euro zone debt crisis.


The data from the nine states was compared with German government bond yields of the same maturity over the same period and all data was collected from Bloomberg. The results provide information on whether each country is a receiver or a transmitter of economic shocks.


Dr Antonakakis said: “These results are of great importance because, for instance, changes in government bond yield spreads in other Euro zone countries can be a good indicator of future changes and their repercussions.


“Shocks coming from the periphery have, on average, three times the destabilising force on other countries than shocks coming from the core, richer nations. This indicates a decoupling effect of countries on the periphery and those at the core that may challenge the argument for a single currency in the countries examined.”


Until now, very little was known about the interdependencies and complex links between Euro zone economies during the debt crisis and global economic downturn.


He said: “The results have important policy implications and can be used to change for the better how governments and regions manage the balance of austerity measures and growth-promoting initiatives.


“The cost of severe austerity measures is not just economic, it has human lives at its heart. If we can produce models which can be used to predict the effect of different scenarios they could be used to help stave off some of the more barbaric measures used to contain economic problems.”


Dr Antonakakis, a senior lecturer in economics and finance, has been invited to present his research alongside world leaders in the field at the SIRE Econometrics Workshop in Glasgow in May. Fellow presenters include Cambridge Professor Hashem Pesaran, editor of Journal of Applied Econometrics, one of the top five econometric journals in the world; Professor Paolo Zaffaroni, Imperial College; Professor Valentina Corradi, Warwick; and Rod McCorie, St Andrews.


More … http://www.port.ac.uk/uopnews/2013/04/16/weak-european-neighbours-have-immense-power/

Tuesday, 16 April 2013

Risk management must understand global risk factor exposure - http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-risk-management-consultants/risk-management-must-understand-global-risk-factor-exposure/

http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-risk-management-consultants/risk-management-must-understand-global-risk-factor-exposure/


businesscontinuityminiRisk management must understand global risk factor exposure: use of new proactive risk indicators for monitoring.


 


Extract from FERMA Blog – Mikhail A. Rogov:


The modern risk management is currently going through an ideological crisis showing the following symptoms:


- failure to understand the nature of the majority of risks, eclecticism of methods and concepts, in both technologies and standards of risk management;


- disregard of the interaction between operational risk, credit risk and market risk, lack of continuity in management processes, lack of common rating scales for the assessment of various risks;


- inadequate tools for operational risk assessment;


- the virtual absence of portfolio approach to operational risk management;


- difficulties with forecasting stress and crisis scenarios generation, difficulties with explaining the nature of chaotic market processes;


- the problem of the recently increased relevance of some previously uncommon factors, of which the following ones are thought by the author to be most important : cyber-terrorism and industrial terrorism, influence of social networks, High Frequency Trading (HFT), threat of antibiotic resistance.


Future risk management


The author believes that the next decades will see the development of the following branches of risk management: human error, transfer of operational risks including hedging and portfolio diversification, prediction markets, new concepts of key risk indicator (KRI), risk management of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and households, crowdsourcing, including platforms like Ushahidi, Wiki, new generations of publicly available risk indices, emergence of new asset classes.


Global risk factor theory


The basis for the development of the global risk factor theory Herschel (1804), Jevons (1870), Chizhevsky (1920),the advent of modern heliobiology and its findings, findings of the sciences of human factors, human errors, findings of the sciences of risk management and financial mathematics, accumulation of statistical data (statistics of disasters, volatility, defaults, other events and indices).
The following postulates can be confirmed or refuted by explaining the causal relationships and by statistical analysis:


Risks are interrelated: there are relationships between financial risks of all types (market, credit, operational ones)


Risk interactions have an important role because of the existence of close economic, organizational and technological ties between risk owners: the occurrence of risks (operational, credit, market ones) for some persons implies the emergence of other risks for their counterparties and the subsequent chain reaction of credit and market risks propagating through exchange within the economy. In recent decades, these relations have been developing more intensively than ever before because of market globalization and technological progress. This causal relationship can be illustrated by a typical example of the domino effect in business environment: discontent of the local population (a political risk, part of operational risks) in Nigeria led to the explosion of a pipeline operated by Royal Dutch Shell on December 21, 2005. As a result, the output was cut by 180,000 barrels per day (operational risk of business interruption); the company declared ―force majeure,‖ which meant its failure to perform contract obligations (credit risks for the counterparties), and the oil price went up by 48 cents per barrel (commodity market risk). The mechanism of risk factor influence on the emergence of credit and market risks can be illustrated using the well-known Merton approach, the basis of the Expected Default Frequency (EDF) methodology: distance to default of a firm (i.e. credit risks of its counterparties) is determined by risks associated with the firm’s operations and expressed by the volatility of the market value of the firm’s assets exposed to various types of risk: operational, market, credit ones. The assets volatility determines the volatility of the market capitalization (market risks of investors). Statistical analysis of relationships
Correlation and cointegration of market and credit risks are well known and can be explained by changes of risk premium; however, relationships of these risks with various operational risks cannot be adequately explained without identifying a common factor.


Let us define the global risk factor as a global-scale correlator of risk factor volatilities.


Risks are anthropic: human error is the global risk factor


Human error is not the only risk factor, but it has acquired a global nature. The principal cause of the global influence of the human factor is that it often and strongly affects the sensitivity of assets performance to the majority of other risk factors, no matter what their own nature. In the past decades, the influence of the human factor has been growing due to the increasing operator’s role in business processes and globalization. This is reflected by the increasing correlation of different types of risks.
Investigations of the occurrences of technological operational risk in almost all sectors and regions show that most of such events in the last half-century were initially caused by human error rather than technical failure. And moreover, when caused by technical failure, risk events were mostly the result of accumulated hidden defects due to accumulated maintenance errors caused by organizational errors and again the human factor. This can be confirmed by many examples, some of which are given below. The human factor is the main trigger behind the vast majority of transport accidents and disasters. Human errors are responsible for 90 percent of all motor vehicle accidents. National statistics of individual countries do not differ much from the world average figures. The human factor accounts for 70 to 80 percent of accidents in air and water transport, and for about 50 percent of accidents in railway transport. The human factor is also the dominant cause of industrial accidents and injuries. For instance, about 85 percent of lifting crane accidents are associated with violations of labor or technical discipline. There are about 200 best-known techniques for human factors analysis and assessment. For example, the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) is based on ― the Swiss Cheese model (J. Reason, 2000). The model illustrates errors passing through ―holes‖ (weaknesses) in business processes. According to this theory, there are unsafe acts (errors), preconditions for unsafe acts, including the operator’s psychic factors, unsafe supervision and organizational influences.


Risks are heliogeotropic: human errors and failures (the human factor) depend substantially on preconditions such as the effects of heliogeophysical factors (geomagnetic disturbances, etc.)


Geomagnetic activity depends on solar activity. According to the Svalgaard–Mansurov effect, the variations of the Earth’s magnetic field are influenced by the sector structure of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). These two major factors can disturb the heart rate and cause human errors, which in their turn, trigger chain reactions resulting in the occurrence of all types of financial risks (market, credit, operational ones) all over the world, depending on the assets sensitivity to the risk factors. Besides, human intuition and emotions enhance in the periods of geomagnetic disturbances, and this enhancement influences market expectations. As concerns operational risks caused by risk factors non-correlating with heliogeophysical conditions, their impact depends on the asset sensitivity to these risk factors, while the asset sensitivity itself is heliogeotropic due to the human factor influence. For a considerable part of risks, the dynamics of risk events can be explained by that of human errors under changing space weather that has a planetary effect. This risk source was termed ―the global risk factor. Astrophysicists have shown the chaotic nature of solar and geomagnetic activity, and this can explain (based on the global risk factor theory) the nature of the observed widely discussed chaotic processes in the markets.


Global risk factor indices


There are a lot of indices of solar and geomagnetic activity, and the objective was to choose the best indicator for adequate description of the global risk factor or to develop a new one. In the author’s opinion, the best global risk factor index should meet the following requirements: most fully explain the behavior of market, credit and operational risks, allow for possible regularities discovered in heliobiology (the Mansurov effect), be based on uniquely determinable or measurable values (heliogeophysical data), allow real-time updating. The indices of solar activity are not suitable for describing the global risk factor. This is the very reason of the skepticism of modern science towards the ideas of prominent scholars of the past, particularly (Jevons, 1878) and (Chizhevsky, 1936). The failure to find correlations with solar activity (the Wolf number, also known as the sunspot number) has led to the substitution of this idea in modern science with the general idea of accounting for random factors in economics. Economists rebranded the term ―sunspots‖ by completely stripping it of the implication of Sun-Earth relationships and using it to denote an external non-fundamental variable that influences human behavior. The RogovIndex© family of indices was developed for adequate description of the global risk factor; these indices satisfy the above requirements and are based on the widely accepted index of geomagnetic field variation averaged over several stations (storm-time variation Dst). The conclusion that the effect of heliogeophysical factors on risk is best described by storm-time variation than by any other of the great variety of indices is consistent by the findings of heliobiological research. The author is planning to create a market of space weather index derivatives.


Industry and geographical specifics of global risk factor exposure


The industry specifics of preconditions for error proliferation includes, among other things, the scope of error impact on business processes (with a higher labor productivity, an error of one operator would affect more performance indicators and, generally, more business processes), the scope of business process regulation (including operator qualification requirements and other industry-specific barriers), relative attractiveness of the industry pay rate against the average pay in the region’s economy, the conflict intensity in the industry (the number of strikes). Industry specifics result in different global risk factor exposures that should be taken into account by risk managers. For instance, diversified portfolios may be created using the correlation matrix or cointegrating vector approaches that take account of the global risk factor exposures of various assets and consider credit risks in accordance with the industry specifics. A detector of those risks that cannot be explained by the global risk factor behavior allows planning most topical areas of risk audit for identification of operational risks. The geographical specifics of global risk factor exposure is related to the distance of the region, where the main business process or asset (if appropriate) is located, from the Magnetic Poles constantly drifting relative to fixed geographic coordinates.


Conclusion


The proposed global risk factor theory (Rogov 2002-2013) describes the frequently observed interaction of different types of risks (market, credit, operational) at different assets and in different business processes. The theory opens prospects for risk benchmarking, analysis, detection of anomalies and hidden risks, classification of risks, particularly based on hierarchical clustering of time series. This allows creating new proactive risk indicators for monitoring, as well as applying the market mechanisms of operational risk optimization through diversification and hedging with the use of index derivatives.


Author: Mikhail A. Rogov – http://www.ferma.eu/author/mikhail-rogov/


More … http://www.ferma.eu/2013/04/future-of-risk-management-and-the-global-risk-factor-theory-possible-perspectives/

Saturday, 23 March 2013

Using risk to drive growth and innovation - http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-risk-management-consultants/using-risk-to-drive-growth-and-innovation/

http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-risk-management-consultants/using-risk-to-drive-growth-and-innovation/


businesscontinuityminiUsing risk to drive growth and innovation: importance of taking more risks to embrace failure and keep trying.




 




Extract from The Wall Street Journal, Europe Edition – Leslie Kwoh:


When Jim Donald took the helm at Extended Stay America a year ago, he sensed fear.


Many employees at the national hotel chain, which had recently emerged from bankruptcy, were still stuck in survival mode. Worried about losing their jobs, they avoided decisions that might cost the company money, such as making property repairs or appeasing a disgruntled guest with a free night’s stay.


“They were waiting to be told what to do,” recalls the former Starbucks Corp. chief executive. “They were afraid to do things.”


So Mr. Donald gave everyone a safety net: He created a batch of miniature “Get Out of Jail, Free” cards, and is gradually handing them out to his 9,000 employees. All they had to do, he told them, was call in the card when they took a big risk on behalf of the company—no questions asked.


Growth and innovation come from daring ideas and calculated gambles, but boldness is getting harder to come by at some companies. After years of high unemployment and scarred from rounds of company cost-cutting and layoffs, managers say their workers seem to have become allergic to risk.


Companies large and small are trying to coax staff into taking more chances in hopes that they’ll generate ideas and breakthroughs that lead to new business. Some, like Extended Stay, are giving workers permission to make mistakes while others are playing down talk of profits or proclaiming the virtues of failure.


At Extended Stay, Mr. Donald says the small lime-green cards have been trickling in since last summer, a sign that the staff’s risk-averse mentality may be dissipating.


One California hotel manager recently called to redeem her card, he says, confessing that she nabbed 20 business cards from a fishbowl in the lobby of nearby rival La Quinta in an attempt to find prospective customers.


Another manager in New Jersey cold-called a movie-production company when she heard it would be filming in the area. The film crew ended up booking $250,000 in accommodations at the hotel.


Workers may feel some whiplash as companies inadvertently bombard them with “conflicting messages” to be creative and cautious at the same time, says Ron Ashkenas, a senior partner at Schaffer Consulting, a Stamford, Conn.-based management consulting firm that advises Fortune 500 firms including Merck & Co. and General Electric Co.


A penchant for risk can get an employee flagged as a loose cannon or hard case for management. And, while companies may talk lovingly about experimentation, they’re often quick to deem someone a failure when results don’t come quickly, Mr. Ashkenas says.


Little wonder, then, that senior managers complain that “nothing happens” when they tell their employees to feel empowered and come up with new ideas, he says. The irony, he adds, is that a company where workers fail to take risks along the way often find themselves forced into a “position where it has to take a big bet, to put all chips on one shiny new object.”


Steve Krupp, CEO of consulting group Decision Strategies International, says one of his clients, a financial-services firm, dubbed its portfolio managers the “walking wounded” because they remain traumatized by losses their portfolios sustained during the economic downturn.


Many have become overly cautious about taking even ordinary risks with investments, adds Mr. Krupp, who is devising ways for the firm’s senior leaders and employees to overcome their fears and take balanced risks.


“You can’t just avoid all risk, because it will lead to entropy,” he says.


In many cases, risk-averse employees just assume that’s how the boss wants things. Mark O’Brien, North American president of ad agency DDB Worldwide, says he got a wake-up call when workers cited “profit” as the company’s top priority in a 2011 employee survey. In previous years, profit generally ranked second to creative work, and ahead of people.


He understood why workers felt that way. His division, DDB North America, had just laid off 10% of its workforce, and clients were paying less than before. He saw the work suffer, too—the division, which brought in roughly half of the company profit, only won a tiny share of industry awards given for creative work, a key driver for attracting talent.


Talking too openly about the company’s financial pressures was dampening morale and inhibiting creativity, he reasoned, so he took managers aside and told them, “You and I can talk about money, but don’t let that spill into the rest of the agency.”


Mr. O’Brien has taken risks of his own, going beyond the usual employee pools to source new talent in the U.K. and Latin America, where he says the advertising industry is more competitive.


To prod employees into action, some management gurus are preaching the virtues of failure.


Naveen Jain, CEO of information-technology company Inome, says his own missteps as an entrepreneur led him to urge his 400 employees to “fail fast” if they can, moving on quickly from projects that don’t take off.


“My whole life has been a set of failures,” says Mr. Jain, whose Internet-search venture InfoSpace almost ran out of money in the 1990s. “It’s impossible to try something new and not fail.”


A version of this article appeared March 20, 2013, on page B8 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Memo to Staff: Take More Risks.


More … http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323639604578370383939044780.html?

Saturday, 16 March 2013

Economy and regulations are top risks for organisations - http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-risk-management-consultants/economy-and-regulations-are-top-risks-for-organisations/

http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-risk-management-consultants/economy-and-regulations-are-top-risks-for-organisations/


businesscontinuityminiEconomy and regulations are top risks for organisations: greater need for transparency into nature and magnitude


 



Extract from CFO – Caroline McDonald:


The top two risks identified by executives send the message that they are more concerned with what they don’t know, regarding economic conditions and regulations, than with what they do know, even about significant operational risks, according to an author of the study Executive Perspectives on Top Risks for 2013.


James DeLoach, a managing director at Protiviti and a risk management expert, said the study, conducted with North Carolina State University’s ERM (enterprise risk management) Initiative, suggests “the importance of policymaking and of politicians and government to create an environment that is more predictable, to take the cap off of the economy.”


While the top risks pertain to strategic and macroeconomic issues, “Five of the top-10 are operational issues, but they are in the bottom half,” he explains. “That says that directors and executives are more concerned about what they don’t know than what they do know.”


The survey asked more than 200 board members and executives across a wide variety of industries about the risks their organizations expect to face in 2013. Participants were asked to rate a list of 20 risk issues on a scale of one to 10, with one indicating “no impact” and 10 indicating “extensive impact.”


The two risks that stood out as being of highest concern were:


- Perils relating to profitability constraints because of economic conditions that could curb growth.


- Possible regulatory changes and heightened regulatory scrutiny that could curb the production and delivery of products and services.


“What that says is that most people are used to a more rapidly growing environment,” DeLoach said. “We’re growing in the U.S., but at a slower pace. People are trying to get used to that, but it’s a different game than they have been used to over the course of their careers.”


That issue, he said, “is paramount as a significant impact risk. [Company executives] are having to modify their approach to the market…given the fact that we have slower growth in the economy.”


The second, regulatory risk, was significant for most of the survey respondents, “when you think about Dodd-Frank in financial services and the Affordable Health Care Act, which affects health care providers and also their cost structure,” he says.


Citing a second example of regulatory pressures, the risk management consultant cited the restaurant and consumer products industries which face issues like those stemming from the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act anti-bribery provisions “and the unprecedented prosecutorial cooperation across borders on corruption issues.”


A third risk, he says, is related to growth opportunities and companies’ being restricted “by the uncertainties surrounding political leadership for national and international markets, particularly in developing countries with political stability issues.”


While companies understand their operational issues and are concerned, DeLoach said, “when you’re talking about the issues around regulatory risk and the growth in the economy and political issues, that creates an environment of uncertainty that makes it difficult to hire and invest.”


What this does, he said, is change the game of planning away from one-dimensional strategies. “In these rapidly changing times, if you set strategy with a single view of the future, that can be very dangerous. You have to have multiple views of the future, assess scenarios and stress test your plan,” he explains.


What’s more, one of the operational risks identified was resiliency and adaptability. “To be adaptive means you have to shift and change as markets evolve and customer preferences change,” he says.


Other survey highlights included: 


- Most respondents rated the current environment as significantly risky and said they’re likely to make changes or deploy more resources to managing their respective risk over the next year.


- Chief risk officers (CROs) and CFOs were the executives with the highest ratings in terms of their likelihood to make changes.


- The biggest outfits rated the greatest number of risks as “Significant Impact” risks, reflecting the complexities of their operations.


- Companies in the financial services, health-care and life sciences, and technology, media and communications organizations industries reported the greatest number of significant risks.


More … http://www3.cfo.com/article/2013/3/regulation_erm-international-risk-protiviti-nc-state-university-deloach-

Friday, 8 March 2013

Importance of embracing risk in business planning process - http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-strategy-implementation-consultants/importance-of-embracing-risk-in-business-planning-process/

http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-strategy-implementation-consultants/importance-of-embracing-risk-in-business-planning-process/


portfoliomanagementminiImportance of embracing risk in business planning process: maximising success by increasing confidence in activities.


 


Extract from NACD Directorship - Jim DeLoach:


While strategy-setting defines an enterprise’s overall strategic direction, differentiating capabilities, and required infrastructure, the business plan lays out how the company intends to execute the strategy during an annual period or, if longer, the operating cycle. Some companies have rolling multiyear business plans (say, three years), which take on the appearance of continuous strategy updates. Given this context, the question arises as to how risk should be integrated into the annual business planning process.


Key Considerations


In a business plan, it is critical to define the inherent soft spots, loss drivers, and incongruities that could dramatically affect performance and adversely impact execution. The budgeting and forecasting processes supporting the business plan also must be effective in managing risks, such as liquidity, which can threaten the organization’s viability during the planning period. With respect to the selected planning horizon, two important risks to consider are ensuring the plan itself can be delivered according to expectations and that the company won’t run out of money as it delivers the plan.


With respect to liquidity risk, there are a number of considerations. For example, there are the normal seasonal fluctuations, the inevitable unexpected developments causing revenue declines and operating cost increases, and the issue of inadequate financing facilities or insufficient working capital and/or cash-flow management processes. Then, there are unexpected events that cause business disruption, exposing the company’s failure to match the debt maturity profile to the ultimate realization of assets that its debts are funding. Finally, we cannot forget the extraordinary circumstances that lead to unplanned capital outlays or breaches of loan covenants. The point is clear: Reliable budgeting and forecasting processes in which management and the board have complete confidence are crucial to the business planning process.


Every business plan should identify the appropriate metrics and measures to monitor. If the strategy-setting process contributes to a better understanding of the risks inherent in the strategy, that understanding provides inputs to the determination of key metrics and targets. At this point, risk management begins to intersect with performance management. In effect, traditional key performance indicators (KPIs) and key risk indicators (KRIs) should converge to create a single family of metrics to drive the business planning process.


While KPIs monitor progress toward the achievement of the strategy and are the primary means for communicating business results across the organization, KRIs provide lead and lag indicators of critical risk scenarios. The result is a more balanced mix of forward-looking indicators to complement the usual KPI metrics around customer and employee satisfaction, quality, innovation, time, and costs. For example, accumulated deferred maintenance in a manufacturing plant or refinery may be a lead indicator of environment, health, and safety risks.


Together, KPIs and KRIs provide direction as to what should be managed in the execution of the business plan. The metrics selected must enable the organization to track progress toward the achievement of business objectives, monitoring and mitigation of risks, and compliance with internal policies and external laws and regulations. Metrics become the foundation for integrated business planning, which in turn provides a comprehensive framework to deploy and execute corporate strategy across an organization in concert with risk mitigation planning, budgeting, forecasting, resource allocation and the reward system. In many organizations, these are separate, individual processes, often championed by different parts of the organization.


To illustrate, one company defines its risk management process using the standard six steps: identify, source, measure, evaluate, manage, and monitor. Once risks are “identified,” they are “sourced” to their drivers or root causes. “Measure” means mapping the risks with regard to their impact, likelihood and other criteria. “Evaluate” means determining the desired risk profile and risk responses needed to achieve that profile. “Manage” and “monitor” both relate to executing the selected risk responses.


The company’s business planning process consists of three phases: environment assessment, plan development, and plan execution. The company integrates the “identify” and “source” steps of its risk management process into the environment assessment phase of the business planning process, the “measure” and “evaluate” steps into the plan development phase, and the “manage” and “monitor” steps into the plan execution phase. In this way, managing risks becomes an integral part of running the business.


In summary, integrated business planning deploys the strategy at the level of greatest achievability and accountability, engages appropriate managers who can access the resources required to get the job done, and incorporates the risk management capabilities needed to address the critical risks inherent in the plan.


Questions for Boards


Following are some suggested questions that boards of directors may consider, based on the risks inherent in the entity’s operations:


Does the business plan:


- Decompose the critical steps required to achieve key business objectives into performance plans supported by key metrics and targets that establish accountability for results?


- Identify the soft spots and potential loss drivers that could dramatically affect performance and adversely impact execution of the plan and delivery of expected financial results?


- Link the reward system to performance expectations through a balanced compensation structure that is fair to both the near-term interests of employees and the longer-term interests of shareholders?


Do senior management and the board have confidence in the reliability of the organization’s budgeting and forecasting processes?


Jim DeLoach is a managing director with Protiviti and works closely with companies to improve their board risk oversight, including the communications between management and the board.


More … http://www.directorship.com/integrating-risk-with-business-planning/

Thursday, 7 March 2013

Holistic vendor assessment using ERP/procurement data - http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-risk-management-consultants/holistic-vendor-assessment-using-erpprocurement-data/

http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-risk-management-consultants/holistic-vendor-assessment-using-erpprocurement-data/


businesscontinuityminiHolistic vendor assessment using ERP/procurement data: reducing unanticipated costs by managing associated risks.


 


Extract from Corporate Compliance Insights – Joe DeVita:


Companies don’t have as many walls as they used to. In an effort to reduce costs, improve efficiency and flexibility, and leverage new technologies and expertise, most large companies today have engaged hundreds or even thousands of third-party vendors to provide products and services. From handling IT, payroll, and accounting to manufacturing, marketing, and selling a company’s products, third-party vendors are now woven deep into the fabric of companies’ most vital functions.


While all organi ations monitor vendor performance against the terms of their contracts and service level agreements (SLAs), many fail to put adequate resources into assessing and managing the risks associated with those vendors. This can leave the organi ation open to service or supply-chain interruptions if a vendor fails, experiences a technical or process breakdown, or is impacted by a crisis event — like, for instance, last October’s Hurricane Sandy. The list of risks goes on an on, from data breaches to regulatory noncompliance to risks associated with security, stability, and operational or cultural practices in the vendor’s country of origin. Vendor risk is receiving ever-greater scrutiny from boards, regulators, auditors, and other stakeholders, and managing these risks effectively is a must, both to satisfy those stakeholders and as a matter of simple good sense: When you’re up a ladder, you want to know the person holding the bottom has a steady grip.


Effective vendor risk management takes a holistic, strategy-driven view across the universe of an organi ation’s vendor relationships. It sets up a structure to promote consistency, accountability, and effective controls over all stages of the vendor lifecycle, from the risk-assessment stage, to vendor selection and due-diligence, to contracting, to ongoing relationship management. The range of risks across this universe is potentially huge, as is the sheer number of vendors with which a large company might have relationships. Getting a consistent vendor risk management structure in place and then taking the reins might seem like a Herculean task. But it doesn’t have to be.


Start with the numbers. A global firm might have as many as 100,000 vendor relationships, but when you start examining the individual strategic value of those vendors, the core numbers drop precipitously. Office supply vendors? Not critical. Janitorial services? Not critical. Coffee and vending machine suppliers? Not critical, except maybe late at night. Once you strip away vendors whose products and services have negligible impact on the company’s strategic direction and operations, you’re left with a small number that are truly important, and maybe only half of those provide absolutely critical functions in which your organi ation cannot afford interruption: IT, legal, health and benefits, payroll, outsourced production of products or elements required in your production cycles, etc. These are the vendors on which you need visibility. What are they doing? How are they doing it? What are the risks to which they’re susceptible? Are they stable and secure? If they fail, what’s your plan for replacing them?


Now, how do you parse your list of vendors, separating the wheat from the chaff, documenting the differences, and moving toward effectively managing risks around your critical vendors? As in much else today, a big part of the answer lies within your ERP platform, which can become the source for data on your procurement, your supply chain, and your critical joint business relationships. Being able to pull and analy e that information within your ERP system can give you the first cut of data you’ll need to begin ranking your vendors by their importance to your organi ation. From there, you can begin leveraging a governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) tool to focus your resources toward comprehensively monitoring your most critical vendor relationships.


Conducting a spend analysis is a good first step. Such an effort will provide visibility into where the company’s vendor dollars are going, what services or products it’s getting for its money, where its vendors are located, whether a particular service or product is solely or primarily sourced from a single vendor, and so on. Such information, gathered and stored in a database, provides companies with a flexible tool with which to analy e vendor risk.


Initiating a spend analysis program involves first extracting spend data from your ERP system and any other relevant locations within the organi ation (procurement applications, expense reports, manual spreadsheets, etc.), aggregate this data into a single database, then clean and normali e the data to remove errors, standardi e vendor names and abbreviations, and map services and products to a widely accepted set of classification codes (such as the United Nations Standard Products and Services Code, or UNSPSC). Analy ing this information will allow you to create a list of important vendors, from which point you can assign resources to make a deeper assessment and determine those that are absolutely critical to the organi ation.


Rankings of vendor criticality determine the frequency and scope of the due diligence each vendor relationship requires. Core vendors might be assessed annually, providing information on their financials, credit rating, insurance, performance metrics, and controls, and completing a due diligence survey/self-assessment that addresses questions of information and software security, physical security, data access, etc. Adding this information to your database provides the raw material from which to generate risk insight and rankings. Examining vendors by industry classification or product, for instance, can show which vendors might be susceptible to certain industry-specific risks (talent shortages, commodity supply issues, etc.). Examining by geographies may show a concentration of critical vendors in a region prone to political instability or natural disaster. Examining by security protocols may point up vendors with inadequate data privacy controls, or where the security of physical assets is soft.


In addition to vendor surveys, information might also come from internal performance data, public external sources, and elsewhere, so doing the legwork to assemble, clean, normali e, and populate this data will be no simple task, even after you’ve pared your focus down to your critical vendors. But technology can help, providing tools to manage and automate your vendor GRC processes and your ongoing vendor relationships.


The use of automated vendor analysis is growing. Using tools that automatically extract data from source systems helps you classify and enrich data in your database and makes it easy to leverage dashboards to analy e spend data, contract compliance, performance against pre-determined service or delivery metrics, and compliance with standards related to labor practices, environmental impacts, supplier management, and so on.. Complete vendor risk management software solutions are available that can help companies:


- Assess and analy e vendor risks, define controls, track key risk indicators, and get visibility into risks via scorecards and dashboard reports.


- Create and manage comprehensive vendor profiles, execute vendor surveys/self-assessments (and track responses), manage vendor policies, and manage information on vendor cost, innovation, quality, customer complaints, loss incidents, etc.


- Measure vendor performance against the company’s business goals and rate them for comparative analysis vis-à-vis competing vendors.


- Achieve automation of various processes, including generating e-mails to vendors asking them to fill out surveys, etc.


- Achieve early detection and proactive management of developments such as missed SLAs, unfulfilled contractual commitments, deteriorating vendor financial condition, market events that might affect the vendor, and vendor practices (e.g., use of child labor) that could open up your organi ation to reputational risk by association.


Collating the vendor information stored in company ERP/procurement systems and using vendor risk management software to mine and enrich that data allows companies to more easily narrow their risk management focus to critical vendors, monitor the overall health and performance of those vendors, and make sure everything is proceeding according to plan, contract, and SLAs — or not. The goal is securing an early and more complete understanding of your company’s vendor relationships, which may help to reduce unanticipated costs related to regulatory fees, reputational damages, and unintended natural events.


Joe DeVita is a partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers, based in the New York Metro area, and leads the governance, risk and compliance (GRC) technology practice for PwC.


More … http://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/looking-within-leveraging-your-erp-data-into-a-platform-for-vendor-risk-management/

Tuesday, 26 February 2013

Value of proactive audits in anti-corruption compliance - http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-compliance-consultants/value-of-proactive-audits-in-anti-corruption-compliance/

http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-compliance-consultants/value-of-proactive-audits-in-anti-corruption-compliance/

Compliance ConsultantValue of proactive audits in anti-corruption compliance: similar to transaction testing but focused on high-risks.

 

Extract from Corporate Compliance Insights – Michael Volkov:

This article originally appeared in Michael Volkov’s Corruption Crime & Compliance blog and is reprinted with permission.

The FCPA world is fast-becoming the leader in new compliance strategies.  The Justice Department and the SEC have embraced the requirement for conducting “proactive audits.”

Recent settlements have included new compliance program requirements for a company to conduct proactive audits of high-risk areas.  It is a new and growing area for anti-corruption compliance.

The concept of a “proactive” audit, however, is nothing new.  The strategy has been employed for years in other contexts but now has gained traction in the anti-corruption area.

The importance of proactive audits is even more significant in the anti-corruption context.  As everyone knows, financial audits are not designed to identify illegal bribes because they hinge on “materiality.”  Numerous bribery schemes have been carried out underneath the “materiality” radar screen because they do not involve significant amounts of money.  On the other hand, “forensic audits” are designed to identify illegal bribes, and often incorporate transaction testing and other techniques.

A proactive audit is akin to transaction testing but with a big difference – it is focused on a high-risk operation.

The first step in the proactive audit is to identify those “high-risk” operations.  It is easy to rely on the annual Corruption Perceptions Index to identify those high risk operations but a broader focus is needed.

For each “high-risk” country of operation, it is important to consider:

- how much business is conducted in the country;

- the nature and extent of government interactions;

- the business and compliance history of the company’s operations in the area;

- local business regulation and enforcement in the country; and

- the compliance and ethics reputation and performance of key personnel in each country.

A risk-ranking matrix based on all of these factors should be developed to prioritize those operations for audits.

While it may be desirable to audit almost every office, the available resources (time and money) will dictate how many offices can be audited.  It is unlikely that a company will be able to audit every “high-risk” operation.

The high risk audit program has to be dynamic.  It has to adjust as new risks and factors are identified.  New information has to be incorporated into the analysis.  As audits are completed, new information will be learned and factors may be re-assessed.

Proactive audits require a team approach – lawyers, auditors and compliance personnel need to be included in each audit team.  A coordinated audit requires careful coordination among these personnel.  A detailed protocol needs to be adopted and followed in each audit.

The process needs to be supervised from the top down in the company.  The Compliance Committee needs to sign off on the program, the compliance office needs to manage and design the process with the assistance of the legal and auditing offices.

About the Author:

Michael Volkov is a shareholder at the national law firm of LeClairRyan. His practice focuses on white collar defense, corporate compliance, internal investigations and regulatory enforcement matters, and he is a former federal prosecutor with almost 30 years of experience in a variety of government positions and private practice. He can be reached at michael.volkov@leclairryan.com

Tuesday, 22 January 2013

Holistically mitigating risks amidst increasing complexity

http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-risk-management-consultants/holistically-mitigating-risks-amidst-increasing-complexity/ Holistically mitigating risks amidst increasing complexity: power of clarifying essential roles and duties.   Extract from The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Website: The IIA’s Position Paper, The Three Lines of Defense in Effective Risk Management and Control, addresses how...

Tuesday, 15 January 2013

Global risks are urgent health warning

http://www.chaordicsolutions.co.uk/blog/from-our-risk-management-consultants/global-risks-are-urgent-health-warning/ Global risks are urgent health warning: national resilience to these must be our priority to protect critical systems.   Extract from World Economic Forum – Press Release: The world is more at risk as persistent economic weakness saps our ability to tackle environmental challenges,...