What does your risk environment, landscape, process or reality look like? Do you navigate using intuition, a compass, a map or guesswork?

The concept and reality of risk is 'messy'. Both the practice and understanding of risk varies from person-to-person, organisation, industry, community and government(s).

The only place risk looks 'neat', is a on a spreadsheet or risk register.

Therefore, a practical sketch of what 'risk' looks like in the wild is not only necessary, but also revealing in how organisations and individuals comprehend or apply management, control or mitigation to things that may/may not result in risk(s).

What does your risk landscape, environment, universe or perceived reality look like?

"A considerable diversity, almost a profusion, of conceptual frameworks and methodologies is available for the study of risk. This reflects the complexity and multidimensional nature of risk concepts, for which mixed methods and triangulated approaches are needed to enhance our understanding of how to analyze and manage threats to human and ecological system viability. It also represents the diversity of disciplinary contributions to the study of risk."

(Gordon & Clarke, 2016)

Trains, cars and trucks travel on logical, linear paths, tracks and roads. Risk is not constrained to prefabricated pathways or restricted by guard rails. In other words, risk is not a 'closed ' system that can be controlled, management and modified within the confines of the system or those responsible for the development, preservation or assurance of the system.

Risk remains a hybrid, inconsistent, overlapping and dynamic mix of open and closed systems laden with human bias, judgement, chaos and complexity.

As a result, valuations, perspectives and scales of risk remain fleeting snapshots of visible or perceived reality, prone to decay and attenuation soon after.

It is therefore essential that the process and estimate remain orientated or aware of where it is both situation within the risk landscape and the time/context in which it was observed or stated. Mapping is essential and requires constant revisitation.

Moreover, it is essential to declare or situate any risk estimate, forecast or rating within the known landscape or relative to the process.

In other words, a 'quick and dirty' risk evaluation should be known to be an incomplete, hastily compiled view, not to be used or relied upon throughout other phases or risk evaluation or understanding, including extended timelines.

That is, today's quick risk assessment should not be next month's risk-based decision input

"Reflecting the global reach of many contemporary risks (e.g., disease pandemics, terrorism, financial system collapse, web-based cyber attacks) attempts to address risks on a global scale, for example, through a variety of agencies such as the UN, ICAO, OIE, WHO, WEF, ILO, G20, IRGC, and ISO, are increasing. It remains to be determined whether such international agencies will broadly succeed in their efforts to manage the complexity of contemporaneous global risks effectively." (Gordon & Clarke, 2016)

2022's scorecard affirms the aforementioned organisations and attempts have failed.

Continued attempts to simplify risk or distil reality to a single mathematical formula or universal calculation conceal threats and truncate reality, creating systemic risk and ignoring reality.

No one should be fearful, shy or reserved about revisiting their view or estimate of risk.

Rigidity increases harm and the potential for harm or loss.

Especially when considering an array of human risks such as crime, politics, terrorism, fraud, deception, white collar crime and other threat/bad actors.

Because risk is messy, complex, invisible and interconnected. Take the time to sketch or map your risk reality. Revisit it, challenge it, update it, discuss it and share it so the community can contribute, orientate and improve the understanding and construct.

In sum, all maters related to risk occur somewhere and sometime within a landscape, ecosystem or universe.

Especially risk awareness, risk estimates and the management of things labelled risk. Therefore, a map and sense of orientation is required. Not a spreadsheet. Sketch out how you think 'risk' works.

Evaluate factors, mark where or when risk was formed, documented, controlled or managed. Ensure your actions align with where you are on the map. That is, don't use or repurpose 'old' risk artefacts, knowledge or practices for new or extant threats. The threat changed, so must you and your process.

If you don't have a map and a compass, or similar navigation aides, markers and guides...you will get lost and disorientated. Also, you can't describe the route, terrain or identifiable markers for others to follow or repeat your journey.

Even worse, you may wander into even more dangerous areas, zones or situations. Dead reckoning is a lost art within the realm of navigation. It is even rarer within risk, resilience, security and safety management.

In short, if you have no waypoints, markers or schematics to inform your risk process, your mental models and maps will fail you.

Make a physical one. The results will inform, educate and shock. Especially when you start to assign markers to the 'risk content' and artefacts around you. Including calculations, ratings and scales.

You will often find they were constructed in isolation or another time and place. Dangerous stuff.

You wouldn't consume food well past its prescribed use by date or expiry...why consume even more 'risk' content well past a window of relevance, understanding or reliability?

Conversely, don't worship your map, plan or diagram. It is rarely a reflection of the real world and there remains many things hidden to you and the diagram. Simple reminder, but one worth repeating over and over again.

Ridley Tony

Risk, Security, Safety, Resilience & Management Sciences

Reference:

Glendon, I. & Clarke, S.(2016). Human Safety and Risk Management: A Psychological Perspective, 3rd ed, CRC Press.pp.363-4