ITS835 UOTC Ch 3 Enterprise Risk Management Discussion Subject: Enterprise Risk Management TOPIC – ERM AT MARS AND UC Chapter 3 presented the approach M

ITS835 UOTC Ch 3 Enterprise Risk Management Discussion Subject: Enterprise Risk Management

TOPIC – ERM AT MARS AND UC

Chapter 3 presented the approach Mars, Incorporated used to implement ERM, and chapter 5 presented the University of California Health System’s ERM development. In what ways are the two organization’s approaches to ERM similar? How do they differ? Choose one aspect of each ERM implementation from which the other organization would benefit and explain why.

To complete this assignment, you must do the following:

A) As indicated above, describe in what ways the two organization’s approaches to ERM are similar. Also, explain how they differ. Choose one aspect of each ERM implementation from which the other organization would benefit and explain why.
B) Select AT LEAST 3 other students’ threads and post substantive comments on those threads, evaluating the pros and cons of that student’s recommendations. Your comments should extend the conversation started with the thread.

Discussion should be around 500-600 words

NOTE: These discussions should be informal discussions, NOT research papers. If you MUST directly quote a resource, then cite it properly. However, I would much rather simply read your words.

Attached chapter 3, 5 documents for reference ITS 835
Chapter 3
ERM at Mars, Incorporated: ERM for Strategy and
Operations
Enterprise Risk Management
Professor Michael Solomon
Introduction
•
•
•
•
•
Mars’ ERM history
•
•
Phase 1 – Crash and Burn
Phase 2 – Success
Global rollout
Reporting
Operating workshops
•
•
•
Technology
Aggregation
Template evolution
Conclusion
Mars’ ERM History
•
•
•
•
Mars, Incorporated
•
•
•
Privately held -> migration to non-family management
•
Decentralized management
Leadership had legacy commitment to risk management
ERM was viewed as an evolution
COSO versus bespoke approach
•
•
COSO – Committee of Sponsoring Organizations structure
Bespoke approach won
Phase 1
•
Failed due to being impractical and overly complex
Phase 2
•
Simpler and targeted
Planning Workshops
•
•
Desire to align senior management goals with ERM
Started with simple template
•
•
Operating plan initiative sheet
•
•
•
•
Objective
Score
Risk column
Risk treatment column
Management team met to define and rank
•
•
Risks
Risk treatments
•
Changed label from “mitigations”
Global Rollout
• Used lessons learned from pilot
• Each unit has specific nuances
• Interviewing GM and CFO together saved subsequent
interview time
• Workshops helped to identify
•
•
•
Gaps in risk management readiness
High-risk initiatives
Ongoing activities with unexpected high risk
Reporting
• Color-coding adds
•
•
Urgency
Clarity
• Groups are defined
•
Clusters
• Score represents
•
Confidence of meeting
goals
Reporting, cont’d.
Reporting, cont’d.
Reporting, cont’d.
Operating Workshops
• Several ongoing changes
• Technology
•
•
•
Early-on, process was technology agnostic
Word -> Excel
Excel -> purpose-built software
• ERM supports aggregation
•
More complete view of organizational impact of risk
• Continual template evolution
•
Added risk treatment owners and due dates
Summary
• Mars received an award for their ERM
•
Corporate Executive Boards’ “Force of Ideas Award” for ERM
• Key factors for ERM success
•
•
Alignment with Mars’ principles
Focus on meeting objectives
•
•
•
•
Operational
Strategic
Flexible
Realistic
ITS 835
Chapter 5
ERM in Practice at the University of California Health
System
Enterprise Risk Management
Professor Michael Solomon
Introduction
• University of California’s ERM
• Technology
• Premium rebate program
•
•
Professional Liability Prescription Program (PLPP)
ERM and the Center for Health Quality and Innovation
• Protected health information value estimator
•
PHIve
University of California’s ERM
•
•
•
•
•
University of California (UC) Health System
•
•
Clinics, medical centers, schools
Over 3 million patient visits annually
UC Office of the President’s Office of Risk Services
•
Responsible for ERM
UC formally adopted COSO Integrated Framework in 1995
•
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations Internal Control
Newly hired Chief Risk Officer (CRO)
•
Experienced in ERM from industry
Key Performance Indicator (KPI)
•
Critical to ERM foundation
Technology
• UC’s approach incorporates technology
•
ERM information system (ERMIS)
• Initial phases
•
•
•
Simple risk assessment tools
Dashboards
Control, mitigation, monitoring, survey
• Dashboard system
•
•
Based on KPIs
Visual indicators
ERM Process
ERMIS Dashboards
UC MMR (My Managed Risk) Portal
UC’s Approach to Evaluating Incidents,
Events, and Claims
Premium Rebate Program
•
•
•
•
Program to reduce frequency and severity of loss
•
Professional Liability Prescription Program (PLPP)
Encourage risk reduction initiatives
•
Aimed at reducing cost of risk
Rewards units for implementing effective initiatives
•
•
Annual rebates for initiatives that work
Driving concept – Everyone is a risk manager
ERM and the Center for Health Quality and Innovation
•
•
Joint venture to award up to $8 million
Reduce risk of clinical harm to UC surgery patients
PHIve
•
•
•
•
Personal health information (PHI)
UC asked Bickmore to develop a software tool
•
•
Estimates the value of PHI
PHI value estimator (PHIve)
PHIve steps
•
Process determines the impact of PHI breach
Repercussions
•
•
•
•
•
Reputational
Financial
Legal and regulatory
Operational
Clinical
Summary
• Risk is a part of all organizations
• ERM assists organizations in managing all risk
• UC deliberately advanced ERM to reduce overall risk
• UC Office of Risk management updates risk plans in an
ongoing effort
• Technology is a cornerstone of UC’s ERM

Purchase answer to see full
attachment