Evolve Your Approach to Risk Management. From management-by-colours to hard numbers
Seven key weaknesses of a qualitative approach to Enterprise, Operational, Cyber and Third-Party Risk.
-
Risk ratings reflect personal judgement, not evidence.
Different teams rate the same risk differently.
Biases (optimism, politics, recency) distort results.
#Enterprise Risk, #Operational Risk, #Cyber Risk, #Third-Party Risk
-
Description text“High” doesn’t reveal whether loss is £100k or £10m.
Boards, regulators, and insurers need quantified exposure.
Hard to link to revenue, cost, or service outcomes. goes here
#Enterprise Risk, #Operational Risk, #Cyber Risk, #Third-Party Risk
-
Description text goes hereWithout numbers, it’s impossible to rank risks.
Budgets get spread thinly instead of targeted.
Critical risks may be underfunded while minor risks get attention.
#Enterprise Risk, #Operational Risk, #CyberRisk, #Third-Party Risk
-
Item descriptionYou can’t roll up “reds/ambers/greens” into enterprise exposure.
Concentration risk and interdependencies remain hidden.
No ability to model systemic or cascading effects.
#Enterprise Risk, #Operational Risk, #Third-Party Risk
-
Item descriptionMost assessments are workshop-based snapshots.
They fail to keep pace with fast-changing risks (cyber threats, supplier health, operational disruptions).
Early warning indicators get ignored.
#Operational Risk, #Cyber Risk, #Third-Party Risk
-
Item descriptionRegulators (Basel, Solvency II, DORA, NIS2) expect quantification.
Auditors and investors see qualitative-only frameworks as immature.
Perception of “box-ticking” undermines credibility.
#Enterprise Risk, #Operational Risk, #Cyber Risk, #Third-Party Risk
-
Can’t feed into stress testing or scenario modelling.
No basis for capital allocation, M&A risk due diligence, or crisis planning.
Limits the role of risk management in strategy execution.
#Enterprise Risk, #Operational Risk, #Cyber Risk, #Third-Party Risk