Is it worth the risk?
04/07/2017

Recent events, namely the awful Grenfell Tower fire and its aftermath, prompted me to think about risk. A common definition of risk is: “ a situation involving exposure to danger”. We all know that just to be alive is to expose oneself to danger, it can’t be avoided. Naturally we take steps to ensure we limit the level of our exposure. But where do we draw the line?
At one extreme, we could avoid the risk of commuting to work or even the risk of tripping on the pavement outside by staying in bed all day – but that would bring with it all the risks associated with lack of exercise and loneliness. Even laughing holds risks, although few of us would think about that. Laughing, it seems, helps you to burn calories and increases your tolerance to pain. But, occasionally it can cause dislocation of the jaw and the spread of infectious diseases and some very unfortunate people have had the misfortune of inhaling foreign objects.
Then there’s a psychological element to be considered. One person’s “risk” is another person’s adventure.
It made me wonder what all this means for businesses which as we know face many different types of risk from health and safety to finance and reputational risk. It’s impossible for an organisation to be “risk free”, just as it’s impossible for an individual to live a risk- free life. There would be no innovation for a start and a risk-free business would probably be a very boring place to work (just imagine all the rules, regulations and processes!). Rather like people, some businesses are naturally risk averse and in some cases it’s probably right that they should be. I don’t want other people taking too much risk with my life savings, for example. On the other hand if it’s only held “safely” in cash, that very security creates a risk if there is any inflation.
So, perhaps it’s worth reflecting both on our own individual attitude to risk and on our organisation’s. Are we so risk averse that we are prevented from doing useful things? Or perhaps we are sailing too close to the wind and taking too many risks? What is the effect on the culture of our organisation? Are there too many processes, rules and bureaucracy? Or, perhaps we encourage employees to take too many risks in order to get on?
The thing to remember is nothing is risk free. Money we spend mitigating a risk in one area is money we can’t spend doing something in another. Time we spend scrutinising one project is time taken from other things. Not doing something means the development and learning that would have been gained is lost. So the risks of not taking risks too have consequences.
Pippa Bourne
Categories & Tags:
Leave a comment on this post:
You might also like…
Engineering problem to solve? Let Knovel help you find a solution
Did you know that Knovel provides you with more than just eBooks? Knovel is a key database for many engineering, mechanical and materials courses here at Cranfield University, and contains content from an extensive range ...
Working on your group project? We can help!
When undertaking a group project, typically you'll need to investigate a topic, decide on a methodology for your investigation, gather and collate information and data, share your findings with each other, and then formally report ...
Words matter – a conversational Integrated Vehicle Health Management lexicon
There are many well established barriers to successful digital transformation which prevent full realisation of desired benefits. It is generally recognised that only 30% of digital transformation efforts deliver these results. One of the ...
Library support for new research students
Welcome! We are very excited to welcome you to Cranfield, and we are looking forward to supporting you throughout your research degree. We are always happy to help you – all you need to do ...
Finding full-text Economist articles…
If you’re looking for The Economist, the place to go is ProQuest One Business. Follow these step-by-step instructions to get full-text access. Login here and click on the Publications option at the top, above the ...
New IEEE route to gold open access for UKRI-funded research
You probably know by now that if you publish a paper that acknowledges funding from UKRI (including Innovate UK) it must be made open access immediately upon publication with a CC-BY licence. To remind you, ...
Pippa, Some good questions???? I have always seen good risk management as the flip-side of the coin to good (business) process management. In that context it is much easier to do the usual risk management “gamble” – identify risk, categorise risk, how much do we spend on mitigating risk, and where stuff outside our control (if it’s inside our control, then it’s the business process at fault) happens, what’s the contingency plan – and then striking a balance between the mitigation cost and contingency cost.
It’s unfortunate that the Borough of Kensington & Chelsea’s Procure to Pay (P2P) Process was seriously flawed in the decision to purchase non-fire-resistant cladding for such a structure and worse, did not have any contingency plan in case of fire. The real shame is that the owners of the process and decisions they took gambled with the lives of Grenfell Tower’s residents, while the risk the process owners had was to their livelihood (i.e. reputational, and financial). Not quite balanced in my book!