Talk:WMUK risk discussion: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→The Risk Register: new section) |
(→The Risk Register: c) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== The Risk Register == | == The Risk Register == | ||
Most organizations use a system of "weights" on risk, and also mitigation. So, for a financial risk, the mitigation is more income. Usually done with charts and colours. Wondered if the mitigation side of things was worth thinking about now, as well as the effects of the risk? [[User:LoopZilla|LoopZilla]] ([[User talk:LoopZilla|talk]]) 14:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Completely agree. This was Jon's initial top half dozen. Though I suggest it remains a simple and manageably short list, I would like to see assessments of impact (not just financial impact but other important measures such as reputation impact), likelihood, the contingency plan and residual risk (i.e. those risks that remain once the counter measure is in place). Ideally I would like to see some real churn as risks get managed and their ranking changes as a result. This way the top 5 risks for review in board meetings with the trustees (a standard part of their duties for the charity) would hopefully keep changing. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:24, 23 April 2012
Welcome.
The Risk Register
Most organizations use a system of "weights" on risk, and also mitigation. So, for a financial risk, the mitigation is more income. Usually done with charts and colours. Wondered if the mitigation side of things was worth thinking about now, as well as the effects of the risk? LoopZilla (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Completely agree. This was Jon's initial top half dozen. Though I suggest it remains a simple and manageably short list, I would like to see assessments of impact (not just financial impact but other important measures such as reputation impact), likelihood, the contingency plan and residual risk (i.e. those risks that remain once the counter measure is in place). Ideally I would like to see some real churn as risks get managed and their ranking changes as a result. This way the top 5 risks for review in board meetings with the trustees (a standard part of their duties for the charity) would hopefully keep changing. --Fæ (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)