Newsletter Sign-up

GAMES WITH NAMES

Dear Editor:

The first T is for the top. By that I mean "top management." Either the CEO/president/board of directors recognizes and assures the necessary resources for a robust risk management effort or not.

The second T is for talent, and by that I mean who is running risk management, and where or to whom must they report in the organization?

There are many risk management professionals around the globe who do not have or want the term "enterprise" within their title or designation. It's redundant. We serve the enterprise from which we are paid. The siloing of risk decision-making is an enterprise design, not one of the discipline. How vast and nonpyramidal an enterprise is will be more determinant as to how functional risk management is than any titled role with "enterprise" in it.

I know of numerous enterprise risk managers who are not critical drivers of ERM in their organization. Why is that when they have the title? Simple. It's because of the two "T's." Either the top isn't interested or motivated or the talent isn't there with the ERM or it's perceived the talent isn't there.

We've got all kinds of acronyms in the business world but both of you (writers) got it right with the Point/Counterpoint on ERM. The risk management community, due to ISO 31000 and Guide 73, now has a universally accepted framework that will only get better as each sovereign entity adopts it or creates its own with 31000 as a source document as well as future revisions every three years with ISO.

The term ERM is and will be overused and misused strictly due to the individual's or marketing needs of the moment. Good risk management is simply good management and doesn't have to be disguised or spun as ERM or SRM or GRC, or whatever

Wayne L. Salen, ARM, CHCM, CPSM

Director of Risk Management

Labor Finders International Inc.

Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

LOGGING THE DATA

Dear Editor:

Regarding the article "Ergonomics: The Next Battleground," appearing on riskandinsurance.com, to overstate the concern that outside-of-work factors create a burden on health plans and workers' compensation is not additive.

To the extent that it happens, it's occurring now, yet there is no means to isolate the causes of the problems in the workplace without the data.

Tracking soft-tissue ailments through the revised OSHA 300 log offers a succinct means to track data to alert managers where there is a problem. It's not new; this information was captured for years on the previous OSHA 200 log.

Finally, the oft' used terms "flawed" or "fuzzy science" is the logical consequence of coming to conclusions or making diagnoses without good data. An effective manager should welcome all the information about their organization that's at their disposal.

James D. Good

President

Humantech Inc.

Ann Arbor, Mich.

June 1, 2010

Copyright 2010© LRP Publications