Let’s be honest. Between ‘Risk Evaluation’ and ‘The Science of Danger’, the second name has more star quality.
For an esoteric touch, how about cindynics, the fancy name for the science of danger and therefore of risk measurement?
Cindynicians (risk evaluators, danger scientists) offer seven insights that might open up some new perspectives on the way you evaluate risks in your organisation.
The seven insights are also referred to as axioms – in other words, rules that appear to make sense and from which you can build new systems and structures, like a fuller understanding of the risks faced by your organisation.
- Your measurement of risk depends on more than just the risk, including where your location in the system from which you measure. There are no absolute measurements.
- The way you measure is determined by the rules and values you share with others. Are you sure you have a valid, common basis from which to work?
- The goal associated with the risk affects the measurement of the risk itself. If you omit to take the goal into account when you measure risk, you’ll get a false reading.
- Goals, technologies, measurement precision, behaviour and values are all variable. Not only are your risk measurements destined to be relative, but also only approximations.
- Ambiguity reduction. All is not lost however in 5. above. By examining what happened (post mortem), you can better calibrate for the variables in 5. and reduce ambiguity.
- Crisis and crisis repair. A crisis can be seen as the destruction of a network, such as a network of resellers moving over to work with a competitor. But repair the network and you solve the crisis.
- Ago-antagonistic conflict. Stay with us on this one! It means that any human action has a component that reduces danger and a component that increases danger. Kind of like yin and yang, if that helps.
Now, think of all the fun you can have, applying this approach to the dangers you thought were so absolute/cut and dried/potentially fatal to your enterprise!