Things have been fairly hectic since my return from Toronto. A new client engagement to get started, not to mention a number of late nights watching the FIFA World Cup, have distracted me from posting here.
While catching up on my reading I came across this article in Risk Magazine. The quoted comments are in response to the question “What do you think are the significant challenges facing the risk profession in Australia?”
“Our greatest challenge is that we are not really a profession and do not always behave as professionals.”
That was how Grant Purdy started his response. Grant is the Chair of the Standards Australia/New Zealand Committee on Risk Management. This is the group that led the production of AS4360, on which the bulk of ISO31000 is based. Take a look at his CV (linked below) and you will see that is a practitioner not just a theorist or bureaucrat.
He continues as follows …
“By way of contrast it would not, for example, be possible for me to practice as an accountant or an engineer without proper training and a universally recognised qualification … I would not trust the servicing of my car to an unqualified mechanic and yet many organisations trust their entire strategy for managing risk with someone who has never worked in that area before or who cannot, for example, describe a risk correctly …”
Not only is this often true for Risk Managers, but too often for BC Managers. No universally recognised qualification – but numerous competing certification bodies. No need for experience, rote learning and reciting the text in the exam will suffice.
A number of other observers in the area have made similar observations on the subject. I have included the links below.
- Nat Forbes provides an interesting litany of the various competing certifications in BC
- Trevor Levine talks about the same aspect in the RM field
- John Glenn takes the debate to a specific industry sector in his home in Florida.
Where we do require some degree of certification for a BC (or Risk) Manager, too often we find that these people are not doing the real work but tasking others. Lawyers and Accountants actually do the specific work of their profession, of course there are different levels and the heavy lifting is done by the junior folks. Too often in Risk and BC the heavy lifting is sent to be done by local ‘co-ordinators’ and other non-certified folks.
In particular John Glen’s post targets one of the central issues – are we talking ‘Risk Management’ or the management of risk?
Grant Purdy explains it this way …
“There is also one other, profound and associated challenge we face, that is concerned with , quite simply, how we describe ourselves and what we do. If we continue to describe what we do as risk management and ourselves as risk managers, then we will never advance our profession and enhance its standing. We must realise that we do not manage risk – that is the job of others. Our role is to help, assist and sometimes cajole them to manage risk more effectively.”
If we want to be professionals we first need a profession. Not just the single training and certification approach – but professionals actually doing the skilled work rather than oversight of frameworks and compliance processes.
Are we looking at this the wrong way?
Has BCM and RM become a governance and compliance profession?
Is the management of risk and continuity simply just another aspect of the practice/profession of management?
References/Links
Risk Magazine, June 2010, Issue 75
Grant Purdy – Broadleaf Capital International
John Glen Post on risk certifications
Trevor Levine, Riskczar post on certification
Nathaniel Forbes post on certification in BC
Leave a Reply