Sample Technology Paper on Measuring and Selecting an ERM

I will prefer the ISO 31000 to be used over the PM2 because the PM2 has complicated and complex steps, which are time consuming, compared to the PM2 model. ISO 31000 is superior compared to the PM2 in the sense that it focuses on the mitigation at the risk level rather than the PM2, which focuses on the strategic objectives. The mitigation at the risk level for the new ERM project is very important in order to easily identify and also assess risk, this will be enhance the success of the implementation of the new ERM project in the organization(Leitch).

The PM2 requires a separate worksheet for each risk compared the ISO 31000 (Lalonde and Boiral), which does not require such; this makes the ISO 31000 more preferable since it is economical in terms of the resources and hence the organization will save a lot. In addition, the PM2 require a separate objective combination this makes it to look tiresome and complex to implement compared to the ISO 31000. The ISO 31000 is also more reliable because it does not require either a different worksheet for each risk level or rather an objective combination.

The ISO 31000 is a global standard unlike the PM2 (Leitch), this make it more advantageous compared to the PM2 since there is a need to comply with the global standards in the implementation of the new ERM in the organization. This will ensure that the organization is compliant with the global standards hence it will allow it to be legally acceptable by anyone and any other parties or partners and other stakeholders that will be involved in the day-to-day operation. Therefore making it successful since it is compliant with the standards and regulations globally therefore they can also do its operations anywhere in the world since it is globally acceptable.

The PM2 is complicated especially the Step  four, which involve the linking of programs, initiatives and risks although this is powerful in the implementation process it will be confusing to the branch managers, therefore it might result in poor performance of the new ERM (Mitchell). In addition, the step might not add much value to the project and the overall implementation process of the new ERM; this is thus an unnecessary and therefore giving the ISO 31000 a higher advantage to be used by the organization.

The PM2 involves a lot of duplication and thus some of the activities, which might have been done in the other initial steps. This may end up being repeated in the process for example the step four, which deals with linking programs and initiatives, This being an important step and being almost the last step in the PM2 may end up being a repetetional  step of the steps done initially. Also the last step in the PM2 which deals with the determination of indicators and mitigation of actions, is a very complicated and time consuming since it involve a lot of procedures hence may slow up the implementation of the new ERM, therefore the ISO 31000 is more preferable since it does not involve time consuming and complicated steps like this one for PM2.

 

Works Cited

Lalonde, Carole, and Olivier Boiral. “Managing Risks through ISO 31000: A Critical Analysis.” Risk Management, vol. 14, no. 4, Nov. 2012, pp. 272–300, 10.1057/rm.2012.9. Accessed 20 Mar. 2019.

Leitch, Matthew. “ISO 31000:2009-The New International Standard on Risk Management.” Risk Analysis, vol. 30, no. 6, 8 Apr. 2010, pp. 887–892, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01397.x. Accessed 13 May 2019.

Mitchell, David. “To Monitor or Intervene? City Managers and the Implementation of Strategic Initiatives.” Public Administration, vol. 96, no. 1, 27 Dec. 2017, pp. 200–217, 10.1111/padm.12381.