Concept of ERM

Concept of Enterprise Risk Management P:1/70

��

��

Concept ofEnterprise Risk Management


��

�� Topic

• What is Enterprise Risk Management�

• Conventional ERM-BIA/BCP

• Types and Status of Enterprise Risk

• Idea and Concept of IERM

• Case Study

• Conclusion


��

�� What is Risk�

BS-2599-1:2006Risk:�something that might happen and its effect�s� on the achievement of objectives�

Risk is a concept that denotes the precise probability of specific eventualities. Technically, the notion of risk is independent from the notion of value and, as such, eventualities may have both beneficial and adverse consequences. However, in general usage the convention is to focus only on potential negative impact to some characteristic of value that may arise from a future event.RISK can be defined as “the threat or probability that an action or event will adversely or beneficially affect an organization's ability to achieve its objectives”[1]. In simple terms risk is ‘Uncertainty of Outcome’, either from pursuing a future positive opportunity, or an existing negative threat in trying to achieve a current. From Wikipedia


��

�� What is Management�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management

Management in all business and human organization activity is simply the act of getting people together to accomplish desired goals. Management comprises planning, organizing, staffing, leading or directing, and controlling an organization (a group of one or more people or entities) or effort for the purpose of accomplishing a goal. Resourcing encompasses the deployment and manipulation of human resources, financial resources, technological resources, and natural resources.

Management can also refer to the person or people who perform the act(s) of management.


��

�� What is Risk Management�

ISO 31000 Risk management -- Principles and guidelines on implementation" [3], the process of risk management consists of several steps as follows:Establishing the contextEstablishing the context involvesIdentification of risk in a selected domain of interest Planning the remainder of the process.Mapping out the following:

the social scope of risk management the identity and objectives of stakeholders the basis upon which risks will be evaluated, constraints.

Defining a framework for the activity and an agenda for identification. Developing an analysis of risks involved in the process. Mitigation of risks using available technological, human and organizational resources.

OHSAS-18000�ISO-31000� � � � � � � ��


��

�� How to Do Risk Assessment�

From the Point of ISO-31000The chosen method of identifying risks may depend on culture, industry practice and compliance. The identification methods are formed by templates or the development of templates for identifying source, problem or event. Common risk identification methods are:Objectives-based risk identification Organizations and project teams have objectives. Any event that may endanger achieving an objective partly or completely is identified as risk.Scenario-based risk identification In scenario analysis different scenarios are created. The scenarios may be the alternative ways to achieve an objective, or an analysis of the interaction of forces in, for example, a market or battle. Any event that triggers an undesired scenario alternative is identified as risk - see Futures Studies for methodology used by Futurists.Taxonomy-based risk identification The taxonomy in taxonomy-based risk identification is a breakdown of possible risk sources. Based on the taxonomy and knowledge of best practices, a questionnaire is compiled. The answers to the questions reveal risks. Taxonomy-based risk identification in software industry can be found in CMU/SEI-93-TR-6. Common-risk checking In several industries lists with known risks are available. Each risk in the list can be checked for application to a particular situation. An example of known risks in the software industry is the Common Vulnerability and Exposures list found at http://cve.mitre.org. Risk charting (risk mapping) This method combines the above approaches by listing Resources at risk, Threats to those resources Modifying Factors which may increase or decrease the risk and Consequences it is wished to avoid. Creating a matrix under these headings enables a variety of approaches. One can begin with resources and consider the threats they are exposed to and the consequences of each. Alternatively one can start with the threats and examine which resources they would affect, or one can begin with the consequences and determine which combination of threats and resources would be involved to bring them about.


��

�� Topic


• Conventional ERM : BIA/BCP– BIA/BCP point

– Financial point



• Case Study


��

�� Conventional Enterprise Risk Assessment

Button Up & Inside Out

��

� � � � � 2008/04/16� �


��


Drawback & Shortcoming of Bottom-Up Enterprise Risk Assessment

� � � � � Scenario � � � �

� ��

� � � � � � � / � � Business� ! "

#� $ % & � ' ( ) * + , �

=>- . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 9� � CEO: ; 6 < = > ? @ �

=> A � B C D � E FC G H I��

� � � � � 2008/04/16� �


��


Financial & Stakeholder Point of Enterprise Risk Assessment

� J � J K L

� � M � N O P �� Q R "

� K � L S � S R

� J � J T � � L

U � V W X � �Y

1. Z [ � � �Y#\ ] ^ Z [ _ ` a � � �bc d e fg h i j k l � EFkm n e f m E o p

2. q ; / r s � �Y\ ]^ t � _ � a � � �bc d u � ��kv w � �p

�� ! " � # $ % & '


��


� � � � �

��

� � � � ! " # $ �% & ' ( ) *

� � � � ��

+ , - . /0 1 . � 2 �3 4 5 � 6 7 8 9 � � : ; <= > ? 7 /@ A B 0 C�

D E F G /H I , - J ��K( � L M N /O P Q R � 2 �� ! " S T &

# U V W X = > �Y Z �[ & \F G \/\] I \*

�� ! " � # $ % & '

Drawback & Shortcoming of Financial Point Enterprise Risk Assessment

� ��

Chapter 11

� � � ��

11-4

��

��

��

��

� � � � � � � � ! " # $ � �%� � � � � � � � ! " # $ � �%� � � � � � � � ! " # $ � �%� � � � � � � � ! " # $ � �% &&&&

��

Chapter 11

��

11-8

��

��

� ��

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

� � � � ! " �# $ � � � � ! " �# $ � � � � ! " �# $ � � � � ! " �# $ %%%%

� � & ' � ( ) � � & ' � ( ) � � & ' � ( ) � � & ' � ( ) ****


��

�� Conventional Enterprise Risk AssessmentTo Overcome the Drawback of Conventional Enterprise Risk Assessment

We Need a Point View of Top Down & Outside In�CEO� � �! " � � # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - � . / 0 1 �^ _ 0̀ 1 . �a b � 8 9 O �c d P e N � f

��

� � � � � 2008/04/16� �


��

�� Topic



• Types and Status of Enterprise Risk• Idea and Concept of IERM

• Case Study


��

��

Financial Risks

Hazard Risks

Strategic Risks

Operational Risks

Enterprise RisksLiability torts, Property damage,

Natural catastrophe

Pricing risk, Asset risk, Currency risk, Liquidity risk

Customer satisfaction, Product failure, Integrity, Reputation risk

Competition, Social trend, Capital availability

Predictive �� Preventive ��

Types and Status of Enterprise Risk

( ) * +, - / . / 0 1

2 3

4 5 6 7 * +

�8 9 � : ; < = * +

�4 > ?

� � � � (� � � � � )� /� � � � � � �

� � � �

� �

� � Business � � � � � � �� ! � " # $ % & ' ( ) * �

+ , - � . / � 0 1 � 0 2

3 4 � 5 6 � 7 8 � 9 :

Examples and Definitions


��

��

Financial Risks

Hazard Risks

Strategic Risks

Operational Risks

Enterprise Risks

�� ( � � �� )

� � � � � � � � ��

� ��


From the point of Financial Statement

Balance Sheet Income Statement

Shape long term income and cash flow

portfolio /profile

Shape long term cost structure

portfolio /profile

Impact Right hand side of B/S

Impact Left hand side of B/S


��

��

Financial Risks

Hazard Risks

Strategic Risks

Operational Risks

Enterprise Risks

�� ( � � �� )

� � � � � � � � ��

� ��


Risk Assessment and Measurement! " � # $! " � # $! " � # $! " � # $ (Type � / Type � Error); < = > < � (underinvestment)7 ? @ A B 8 (overinvestment)

VaR Bond /Credit RatingsFinancial Leverage

Capacity/FlexibilityQuality /Brand

Lead/Down timeOperating Leverage

% & � ' (% & � ' (% & � ' (% & � ' ( (Type � / Type � Error)C D � E (underinvestment)C E � D (overinvestment)

��

��

��

��

P1

P2

!" # !" # !" # !" #

P1.

$% & '$% & '$% & '$% & '

P2.

( )* +( )* +( )* +( )* +

P3.

,- . /,- . /,- . /,- . /

P4.

0 1 % 20 1 % 20 1 % 20 1 % 2

P5.

3 4 56 78 %3 4 56 78 %3 4 56 78 %3 4 56 78 %

P6.

9:9: 9:9:

P7.

;< = >;< = >;< = >;< = >

P8.

?@?@ ?@?@AB" #AB" #AB" #AB" #

L1.

CD E FCD E FCD E FCD E F

L2.

G H )I JKG H )I JKG H )I JKG H )I JK

L3.

G HL MG HL MG HL MG HL M

L4.

N OP Q R*N OP Q R*N OP Q R*N OP Q R*

L5.

ST G R *ST G R *ST G R *ST G R *

L6.

6 7 UV6 7 UV6 7 UV6 7 UV

P3

P4

P5P6

P7P8

L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

L6


��

�� Tools for Strategic Risk Assessment

From the point of Strategy Management


��

�� Tools for Operational Risk Assessment

From the point of enterprise/product life cycle


��

�� Tools for Financial Risk Assessment

Basic Concept of Financial Risk Assessment


��

�� Tools for Hazard Risk Assessment

From the point of Fall Tree Analysis

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

P1

P2

� � � �� P1.

WX Y ZWX Y ZWX Y ZWX Y Z

P2.

[ \] ^[ \] ^[ \] ^[ \] ^

P3.

_ à b_ à b_ à b_ à b

P4.

c d X ec d X ec d X ec d X e

P5.

f g hi jk Xf g hi jk Xf g hi jk Xf g hi jk XP6.

lmlm lmlm

P7.

no p qno p qno p qno p qP8.

rsrs rsrs� � � ��

L1.tu v wtu v wtu v wtu v w

L2.x y \z {|x y \z {|x y \z {|x y \z {|

L3.x y} ~x y} ~x y} ~x y} ~

L4.

� �� ]� �� ]� �� ]� �� ]

L5.

�� x � ]�� x � ]�� x � ]�� x � ]

L6.

i j ��i j ��i j ��i j ��P3

P4

P5P6

P7P8

L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

L6


��

�� Challenges for IERMLack of Integrated Methodology � Each of the four type enterprise risk has own methodology and mutually

exclusive theory back ground, or origin.� ��Tool, � � � ��

How to prioritize the four heterogeneous enterprise risk�� How to compare different types of risk ? Use which or what kind of

standard or criteria?� � � �� $ �� Different Industry and strategy orientation cause different risk calculation,

comparison, and benchmark base line�� Art for boardroom, ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + �

Interaction between the four enterprise risk!� , - � � ��* . �/ 0 1 2 34 0 5 6 78 9 : ;

� : < = 8 > ? mutually exclusive !


��

�� Topic




• Idea and Concept of IERM– Lesson Learned from DRAM History

– Concept of Enterprise Risk Management

– IERM Ideas

• Case Study


��

��

�DRAM � � @��A � �B 8 �C D 4 E �F G

DRAM in standpoint of IERM

Most USDRAMmakersexit

Manymergers

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

10-7

10-6

10-5

-26% per year

ProfitsLoss

Cost

per

bit

($)

Year


��

��

��

��VS � �� •��5 � � 0.18 � � � � � � � 10 � � �• � � � � � � � 0.15 � � � � � 15 � � � � � � � � !• � ! � 0.11 � � � � " # $ � ! % & 20 � � � � �

��VS � �� • � � � 0.15 � � ' ( ) � �* + 0.18 � � , * - . / 01 . /•0.11 � � � � � ' ( ) � �* + 0.15 � � , * - . / 01 . /• � � � 2 3 4 5 6 7 ' ( 8 ) ) � �* 4 , 6 7 ' ( 9 : 4 ;

� �� VS � �� • � <= > ? @ AB C A7 D �• ? @ <�E FG H I J 0' ( K 9 : L

��

� � � ��

��

� ! � " �� # $ % & ' ( )

��??

DRAM in standpoint of IERM

What is the “real” risk of a DRAM companyM� � ��

��


��

��

Lesson Learned From DRAM

Fundamental Concept of IERM

��


��

�� Meaning of IERMIERM=Enterprise Management!

�HI J K �L �MN O P Q 3R S P T U V W X Y �Z [ \ ]

�̂ _ ` �a b �c d Me f g e ��7h i � - ��j k �4 l m �n �

f g

�HI ��A � �L ��o p Mq HI K h i n � ��r s _ 79 t u �\

] v w N O t - �P Q

� � = � � C D 4 x �F G�y \ =y �+\ ]�y ��z {

� � * + , - . / 0 1 ( 2 3 ) 4 � 5 6 7 ) 8� + , / 1 0 9 6 7 ) 8 4 : ; < = > ? @ 2 3 4 A �

�\ ] �z { M

� - & B 4 6 C D EF & B 4 G H EI & B 4 � J / K L M & B 4 N O� P Q & R ES T U V W X Y

��A � = min the Risk= f ( Type� Error , Type � Error)Type� Error � Z [ 4 \ � 2 4 ] ^ _ ` a 9 a 4 b c_ � d e V f gType � Error� Z 2 4 \ � [ 4 ] ^ ` a h / 9 a 4 b i cj � 2 3


��

�� Directions for IERM� � � � �

�] �% HI �| } 7HI �~ w � � � � � O � � �� z � � �v � 72 �

� f � z � � ”HI ��”�\ ] v w �IRR�F G z @�� ~ �� 2 � � �� q “��” visualize�L �M

/ k lm n o p Eq � r s t u

��lv o p w x y zx � o p f g C 4 trade-off I { b g | } z~ 6 �� ! � � (for i 8 � � � � � � )

� � � � � � � � � � �� ! " # � $ % & '( ) * % + , - (. / 0 ( 1 2 3 �4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; )� < = ! " >; � ? @ A B @ C � D E F 'G H F (BCG I J )� K L ! " >; 6 ? @ A � M N F 'O H F 'P Q D R 'K L S T

� U V ! " >U V S T

�Hazard RiskN W �� X YZ �[ \ ] W ^ _ �`depend on a C b c d ! " � e f g

EA

AS

SNI

EA

ROAEA

ANI

ENI

ROE ××=×=×==


��

�� Idea for Implement IERM� � �� & @� � � � 3� I � � �HI � � � � � W ¡ ¢ £ (¤ � Strategy Risk)� ¥ ¦ @§ ¨ © � � O � �Operational & Hazard Risk. �/ 0 U V� 9 � z � � �ª � q 9 « � � Risk ¬ @� ® O I j ¯ ° ± Financial Risk(² ³ ´ I /µ ¶ I · ¸ j k ¹ º )»� t ¼ ± � � º ½ HI �~ w � � � � 7� O � � � z �� 3��v �

Outside-In VS Inside-Out¾ P =¿ À -v w

=Á Â Ã *̄ Ä (M h D E F * M N F ) - (Å Æ v w +Ç Æ v w )=f(È É �Ê Ë Ì Í , � I v " Î , � I Å Ï Ð ¹ Ñ , � Ò /§ ¿ Ó n )-f(Ô Õ Ö × Ø , Ù Ú � � , Û © � � , Ü Ý � � Þ � )

Implement and IntegrateCo-ordinate Top-Down Target & Bottom-Up Operational ProcedureCollaborate Outside-In situation and Inside-Out Goal


��

�� Agenda





• Case Study– Company Profile and Product

– MEP Industry Retrospect and Prospect

– Solar Cell Industry Retrospect and Prospect

– Strategic Risk Analysis

– Operational Risk Analysis

– Hazard Risk Analysis


��

��

Standpoint of Strategy Management Outside-In and Inside-Out

Case Study of Strategy Risk Assessment

Outside-InStructure-Conduct-PerformancePorter Competitive Strategy

Inside-OutResource-Based View

��

� � � � � � � � � �


��

��

Integrate Strategy Risk Assessment�� Outside-In and Inside-Out

Case Study of Strategy Risk Assessment

ß à �á " â ã ä J # .å � �P �ä J # .� � % æ æ

ç è v w é ê �Ó ë �ì �

í� � î ïð ñ ~ { �~ ò ó

ô A �

õ ö ÷ ø ùv w ú�û ñ

È É ü ý

� I : <

� � þ �� v

� � � � Ò �È É �N �

� u � � �

��

� � � � � � � � ÷ ª

Ö × ñ �ð � � � ��

v w ª e �/ � ª " � � Î � u

È É v " Î � u � � � ª �

� � � � ! W � È " Î � u

# � �ª � $ % �& ' ¬ ( )

� � ��

� � �* +

, - 3. õ � � �Ö × Ø

/ 0 1 �� 2

� I 3�Ç Æ � � �ª �

\ ] �4 5

¤ � � � �

�� 6 �

7 8

9 Å ¸ Ç9 Ç ¸ Å: Ñ �ü 8


��

�� Case Study of Strategy Risk Assessment

The Way to Reduce Strategy Risk of this CaseM1.�� ( � � =>� � � � )

i j k H l m

+ c n o p q < = r s / t ui j v w x y z {

2. � � �� ( � � => � � )| � @ A

6 ? @ A | � } ~

6 ? @ A + } ~ �| � � �

Z �@ A � � D R � �N �� f M N F ��

��D R � � � � � D � � � � �! " � �

� � � ! " �� b 8 9 � � � @ C � i j + � �

n � $ D E H � �� ¡ ¢ �£ ¤ � ¥ ¦ �

§ ¨ + © ª b � >« ¬ E + « E ¬ � � ® ¯

Conversion and Articulation of Different Product�� ! " # $ �% &

Integrate Strategy Risk Assessment��;< = ª � �> . ? ª : Ñ z @


��

��

� � � ! " � � # $ Operational Risk1. « @ A B2. Cost Leadership u v w

Case Study of Operational Risk


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� � ��

��

� �

��

:

��

---IT�� ¡¢ � �£ � � ¤ ¥¦ §

; � � � �� @ Operational Risk


� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

• � � � � ��

• � � � � � ( � � / � � � � )• �� ( � ! " � # � )$% & ' ��( ( ) * + , - # . / ' 0 1 )


��

��

ProcessInput Output

� �

ProcessInput Output

� �

ProcessInput Output

� �

��

:

��

---IT

�� ¡¢ � �£ � � ¤ ¥¦ §Case Study of Operational Risk

� � � � � � � � ��

C « _ @ D E . � ä F G �H (

C I J F G M� � K H LM J N

C t O �J P A � MQ M J

C / � � R ? S' ��( ) * �+ ,

- . / �0 1 2 3 ��45 �� + ,

- 6 7 ��2 3 8 9 : ;

' < * =

- � � �> ? @ A B C D E F G


��

��

Operational Risk %& '9 § ¨ T U �: Ñ @ Operational Risk

H I J K L M N O H I P Q R S T � U V W Q X YZ S T � U [ \ � U ] ^ _ ` Y

H I J K _ ab

c S T � U [ \ � U ] ^ _ ` : Yd e f g h i @ j Y k ) � EBITal @ j bH I J K maY" n M N o p q r s t u E e f g m` Yq r s t H v g m` wx

H I y z m` {


( ) ��E �| } / . / ~ � wS T F �S T F �� ) � S T � U

S T � U ` =>H I y z `( ) v � � H I y z � ` {

i � / � ( ) v �� Y��

�� !" # $ % & ' ( ) * + ,


��

��

Operational Risk %& 'What is Operational Risk��

A B ® O § ¨ ��M@� P 2 ª �

Type� Error� � � � 4� � � � �� @ � �� ¡ ¢P £ ¤ ¥ ¦§ ¨ © ª ��

Type � Error� � � � � � � �� « ¬ p . � ¡ � �� ¢P £ � � ¦��® Q � �+ , / . / ~ � ¯ ° 2 3


Infrastructure � � � � � � �� {

- ERP/MM/MRP- � ± 5 ² �³ ´ µ ¥ ¶

(��9000/16949!)- · B C ¸ ¹ º | » º F G ¼ ½

� � � � � � � � � � � � � ��


��

��

Operational Risk Part �Cost Leadership u v w

;� � � V À z : < v w � W �z {

¾ x ¯ ° > ? ¿ À F G Y � �� Á @ Â Ã ¢

1. Ä Å /MO sourcewÆ & Ç È � U �É Ê Ë 52.�É Ê V W 5 Ì . / YÍÎ Ï �; & Ç È � U Ë 5

� U �� Ð Ñ ¢

* Ò . / Ó Ô Õ F Õ F Ö × Ø Ù � �Ú Û Ë Ü x Ý Þ YÜ ß à º á F Î â

Ú Û Ü ß ´ µ ã W

Ú Û Ü ß overhead( ) ã W


� � � � � � / � � � � �

� � � � / � � ��


��

��

Operational Risk Cost Leadership u v wv w � W �z { M

µ \ � �X Y � ~ � ~ Z [ \ ] ̂ �

4 � _ I X u �̀ B a ~ b c

� u �A � d 2

� u �overhead® O d 2


� ä ( ) v å æ Cost Down ç ° e� � � � � ! " Second Source # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2

3 4 5 6 , 78 9 : ; <�= >

3 4 5 ? " �@ A 7B C D E F G H I <

J K L M N O

P Q R S T U V W X

Costmß YM N ��m�� è Yé ê � �ë ì í î �ß � U ï ð � j ß Operational RiskYé ñ ` Hazard Risk�

� � � � �� Hazard Risk..


��

�� Case Study of Operation & Hazard Risk

Relationship Between Operational Risk and Hazard Risk Scenario : Safety PK Cost DownIn this case, cost did not buy safety successfully. Y Z [ \ ] ^ : ; + _ ` a b c d e "

� � � � �

• � � � � � � � � � �• � � � � � � (� � � � � � ! " )# � � � �

• $ % & ' ( ) * + , - � . /• 0 1 2 3 � 4 5 6 � � 7 8 9: ; � � �

• < = > ? @ A � B C D � E F• G H I J � K L$ % � M ' ( �


��

��

Integration and Co-ordinationFrom Outside-In Strategy Risk to Bottom-Up Hazard Risk

ò ó �v ô õ ö T ÷ ø ù h y z aú

'��û W �ü ± ý þ � �Ø Ù Ë É u �� è ú

' ü ± � �é ü � � � �� Ø Ù Ä � �� è 4 � � � IDMa| �

" º �� U � � ù h T ö T � ÷ ø M N H I y z

' � D û � � y z �� û �

' � ( ) � H I y z � S T � U �q r s t � ` �

� � �� % & Y � ) � � � � ÷ ø M N � � � � � !

' " �� # $ �Yu Á % �� & : ; ' q Yé ( ) � ë þ * + , - .

' 2 *

' / Ð H 0 � � � è > ö

1 2 P Q � ' q Y � ) 3 � 4 5 õ �Ä �

'i 6 � 7 8 9 ¯ ° < �Y : ; 7 � < ®

' = ; ¯ ) F �Y4 : ; > ¯ ° ? �infrastructure : @ , Y¯ ° A B > C D 0 E' " ' q �cost i � F W 0 G ù @ Y0 E � � H � �� 4 / Ð I J K ¶ �� è b

Conclusion


��

��

Integration and Co-ordinationFrom Outside-In Strategy Risk to Bottom-Up Hazard Risk

1 2 P Q ' q � � � Y � ) 3 � 4 5 õ �Ä �

' L M H � �� 4 / Ð I J H N K ¶ �ç F Y§ ¨ * O cost downY P ú Q Ra Q YinfrastructureS T U V ¦¡ W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ ab

'm : ; j ß � U Ymcost downY _ 6 7 q r ` a b < Y7 c� d ) � e, f g

M N 0 1 h ³ �� 4 Ä � U i Y � ) Hazard Risk• ÷ ø M N ( Q ç Z � � y z j ` Y¾ Ë k ¼ ½ ~ l m Y n I � M N Ë c: ; o � ç Z y z Y p q µ ¶ r £ : ; s � ¦~ l s � t ` Ë c `

• ¾ u v I w Z Ð < Y I � ¾ x 0 1 I w x y / z { � è 4 | Y } ~ ¼ ½ � / I� û �Î â Y� � 3 � � ï " i buffera/redundantcYË k Õ F � � / �� trade-off � � y z b

• M õ � ó � 4 0 F � i ¢ � � � ´ w � � � � º w ¦º Q � Á operator � � � ! � � �� H � �� 4 / Ð I J K ¶ �� è �

M N ê � y z ï ¢ � � 2 ��

• 4ï � v " µ ¦ � � back up��Ä ] > IT F G ¼ ½ redundant(Bottom-Up f E g h � i j / k l �k m � R n )

Conclusion


��

��

Integration and Co-ordination of Risk Assessment

� !

�o p � q r

s t u v + � w x y o

z � { | } ~ � �� v � + � d j

�� e � � � � � � � [ � � �

� : � / � w � � � � � � � K � �

� � y z

� �� c � � � � ¡

� R n � ¢ £ R n

� � ¤ ¥ � ¦ § � p ¨

© ª « ¬ � ® [ \ ¯ o �° ± ² ³

´ µ

¶ � · �̧ �¹ ¶ } ~ º » ¼ ½

� v y z

� c A � � D E � � �

� �

� � � ¾¿ À } ~ ¡ Á

Â Ã Ä Å e "

� c * 2 � D E � � K

Æ � h Ç � · } ~ { | È �

� É � � � t u �¸ Ê M Ë z � Ì Í

� r µ �` Î Ï Ð Ñ z �

Ã h Ò Ó � � � Ô Ê Õ � � Ö × � � ¾

Ø Ù J � P Q Ú Û � ¿ À } ~ � a Ë

H I y z

� � CEO� Ü Ý � � o � � z % Ë ¥ 1

2 � � � � ® Þ ß

� c � � � à á � � �

â ã

� � z % o � = ä niche å æ �fit © ª� � � ç � è é

© ª z % å æ ê Õ Ã * ë ì

� í å æ î ï è é �ð ñ î ò � � ó

½ ô ¾õ ö ÷ a �ø Â Ã à á

Ë ù ú Á X 5 W z % û ü 2 * � Â Ã

� ý þ ��3 h Ç d � � ��

ù h y z

� �� y z �

Conclusion


��

�� END Learn Learned

��M�� ......

' � � � � ? � � � �Â µ Y � � � ï � û 3 � � v � � �4 � �� z { � � Á

m £ ¡ Y I � ¢ £ �¤ ë ¥ ¦ ï ¢

' ¢ § M N ï ú ¨ Y � � © O ú ª « c R Y n Á c the biggest fish in the small pond!(� 4 ¬ ¦�� b u Á ® ¯ H 0 ° 4� )

' Small fish ± ² ³ ´ ¦ ( � � 7 © O niche ú ª « c R ( � µ 4 ¶ · � ¸ ¹ �...)Y º 4P � � * � » aM N Y` � ö ¼ ½ � À b( > ¾ ( � � ¿ À Ä �� Á 3 " ¯ � µ â � Y ½ c 5 ² � � ´ � � © O ¢ Ì Â ú M N )b

� ��

' � µ Ã @ � v Y� � � ( @ ´ niche market & spaceY E � j ß y z ¦� 3 Ä . b' � Å 0 5 ³ , ` ¦ w 5 Ì ��/ Æ � Ì Ç � ï y z b' � ð " û g È ô õ / � ô É � � Ê Ë û g È Yï Z É Ì g È ô õ /� � 7 Â Ã b' � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 4P ï ¢

1. �� = æ ¢ Í Î Ï 4 Ï a¦ Ð Ñ Ï 4 Ï =

2. �� Ò Ó Ô Õ ¢Á ú � aÁ Ö ¦Á a� ú Á ² Y ½ c M N ` � × � Ø Ù Ú Ò

Û aú ¦T �ç F b

3. �� â � ¢ ¶ · Á 3 " ¯ ¦ Ü ý É ç F ¦4§ Ý ¦ý þ Þ è �� b â � Y

w ß : . � » �Ð à b

Documents

Concept of ERM