ITS835 Cumberlands Enterprise Risk Management Reflection Paper Provide a reflection of at least 800 words (or 3 pages double spaced) of how the knowledge,

ITS835 Cumberlands Enterprise Risk Management Reflection Paper Provide a reflection of at least 800 words (or 3 pages double spaced) of how the knowledge, skills, or theories could be applied, in a practical manner to your desired work environment. Share times when could observe these theories and knowledge could be applied to an employment opportunity in your field of study.

Requirements:

Provide an 800 word (or 3 pages double spaced) minimum reflection.
Use of proper APA formatting and citations. If supporting evidence from outside resources is used those must be properly cited.
Share a personal connection that identifies specific knowledge and theories from this course.
Demonstrate a connection to your desired work environment.

Please find the attachments for the course details and PPTs of the chapters covered.

Please fulfill the requirements without fail. Course Name: Enterprise Risk Management
Course Description: This course goes beyond looking at risk management from the confines of quantitative
topics to cover the full spectrum of risks that may emerge in enterprises. It covers a more holistic approach that
includes the decisions and actions of employees in an active enterprise. It uses case studies to demonstrate the
issues and challenges in total risk management. Finally, the course explores techniques for balancing enterprise
risk and reward to enable performance optimization.
Text Book followed:
Fraser, J., Simkins, B., & Narvaez, K. (2014). Implementing enterprise risk management: Case
studies and best practices. John Wiley & Sons
Chapters covered so far:
ERM in Operations
Chapter 3, “ERM at Mars, Incorporated: ERM for Strategy and Operations”
ERM in Healthcare
Chapter 5, “ERM in Practice at the University of California Health System”.
Strategic Risk Management
Chapter 6, “Strategic Risk Management at the LEGO Group: Integrating Strategy and Risk
ERM in Higher Education
Chapter 9, “Lessons from the Academy: ERM Implementation in the University Setting”
Performance Measurement in Risk Management
Chapter 12, “Measuring Performance at Intuit: A Value-Added Component in ERM Programs”
ERM as a Strategic Planning Tool
Chapter 15, “Embedding ERM into Strategic Planning at the City of Edmonton”
Risk Management Special Cases: Part 1
Chapter 18, “BlueWood Chocolates”
Risk Management Special Cases: Part 2
Chapter 19, “Kilgore Custom Milling”
Risk Management Special Cases: Part 3
Chapter 22, “JAA Inc.—A Case Study in Creating Value from Uncertainty: Best Practices in Managing Risk”
Risk Management Special Cases: Part 4
Chapter 25, “Uses of Efficient Frontier Analysis in Strategic Risk Management: A Technical Examination”
ERM and Risk MiniCase Studies: Part 1
Chapter 26, “Bim Consultants Inc.” Chapter 27, “Nerds Galore”
Chapter 27, “Nerds Galore”
ERM and Risk MiniCase Studies: Part 2
Chapter 28, “The Reluctant General Counsel”
Chapter 29, “Transforming Risk Management at Akawini Copper”
ERM and Risk MiniCase Studies: Part 3
Chapter 30, “Alleged Corruption at Chessfield: Corporate
Governance and the Risk Oversight Role of the Board of Directors
Chapter 31, “Operational Risk Management Case Study: Bon Boulangerie”
Other ERM Case Studies
Chapter 34, “Turning Crisis into Opportunity: Building an ERM Program at General Motors”
ITS 835
Chapter6
Strategic Risk Management at the LEGO Group
Dr. Oussama Saafein
Introduction
•
•
•
•
•
•
LEGO Group history
Strategy
Legacy riskmanagement
Enterprise risk management at LEGO
The PAPAmodel
Risk management ROI
LEGO Group History
•
•
•
Headquarters in Billund,Denmark
Second largest toy manufacturer (globally)
Founded in1932
•
•
•
Iconic bricksfirst introduced
Bricks manufactured since 1958 fit with one another
2400different brick shapes
•
Manufactured in plants across four countries
LEGO Strategy
•
LEGO mission
•
•
LEGO vision
•
•
•
“Inspire and develop the builders of tomorrow”
“Inventing the future ofplay”
Growth strategy
Innovation strategy
ERM at LEGO
•
•
Risk management developed in 4 stages
•
•
•
•
Step 1:Enterprise risk management
Step 2: Monte Carlo simulations
Step 3:Active Risk & Opportunity Planning (AROP)
Step 4: Preparing for Uncertainty
Order is by initiation sequence
•
•
Steps 1 & 2 are damage control
Steps 3 & 4 are proactive
ERM Step1: Enterprise Risk Mgmt
ERM Step 2: Monte Carlo Simulations
•
•
•
Monte Carlosimulation
•
Method of evaluating the effect of input variances on a model of
a complexsystem
•
In short, it helps to see how input variances affect outcomes
Helpstodefinerisktolerance
Implemented in threeareas
•
•
•
Budget simulation
Credit risk portfolio
Consolidation of risk exposure
ERM Step3:AROP
•
•
•
Active RiskAssessment of Business Projects (AROP)
Formal approach to defining and handling project risk
Includes multiple steps
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identification
Assessment
Handling
Reassessment
Follow-up
Reporting
ERM Step 4: Preparing for Uncertainty
•
Preparing for Uncertainty
•
•
•
Defining andTesting Strategies
Workshops precede strategic planning sessions
Four scenarios
•
•
•
•
Agree on two key drivers of uncertainty
Describe each of four quadrants of 2×2 matrix
Define strategic issues
Actions totake
•
“who is doing what by when?”
The PAPA Model
•
Park,Adapt, Prepare,Act: PAPA
•
•
•
•
Park
Adapt
Prepare
Act
Risk Management ROI
•
•
•
Strong support from upper management
•
More visibility of enterprise risk
Efforts have resulted in value
Many LEGO key planning processes now include risk
management
•
More opportunity to address risk
Summary
•
•
Risk management is not risk aversion
ERM allows LEGO to take risks when appropriate
•
•
•
Grow
Create value
LEGO strategic risk management mission
•
“Drive conscious choices”
ITS 835
Chapter9
Lessons from theAcademy: ERM Implementation in the UniversitySetting
Dr. Oussama Saafein
Introduction
•
•
•
•
•
Higher educationenvironment
ERM in higher education
Adopting ERM in Colleges and Universities
The University of Washington case study
Summary
Higher EducationEnvironment
•
•
•
•
•
•
Generally considered “different” from enterprises
Historically separate from targets of legislation
Often, success may lead to lack of risk management
Multiple high-visibility scandals have shed light on HE
Many HEIs have migrated to more corporate ERM
Different HE cultures demand different ERM solutions
ERM inHigherEducation
•
Recognition of institutional areas
•
•
Each encounters unique risks
Risks can include
•
•
Litigation settlements
Loss
•
•
•
•
Assets
Enrollment
Donors
Reputation damage
Adopting ERM inCollegesand Universities
•
•
Think tank of HE to discuss ERM in HE
•
•
•
2001
Price waterhous Coopers
NationalAssoc of College and Univ Bus Officers (NAUCUBO)
Focus
•
•
•
Definition ofrisk
•
Proactively engage the campus community
Risk drivers in HE
Implementation of risk management to assess, manage, monitor
risk
University of Washington
•
Sentinel event
•
•
•
•
$35 million fine for Medicare and Medicaid overbilling
Push to implement ERM to improve compliance
UW is built on a decentralized governance model
Started with
•
•
Strategic Risk Initiative Review Committee (SRIRC)
Each initiative asked
•
•
•
Does this proposal add value?
What obstacles are apparent and how can they be addressed?
How can this proposal be improved?
Universityof Washington,cont’d.
•
Committee recommendation
•
•
Create a Culture-Specific ERM
Examined otherHEIs
UW Evolutionof ERM
UW ERM Structure
UW’sERM IntegratedFramework
UW’s ERMProcess
UW’sRiskAssessment: Likelihoodand Impact
Summary
•
•
Outcomes are consistent with guidance offered by
•
National Association of College and UniversityAttorneys (NACUA)
NACUAeight critical factors
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Establish the right vision and realistic plan
Obtain senior leadership buy0in and direction
Align with mission and strategic direction
Attack silos at the outset
Set objectives and performance indicators
Stay focused on results
Communicate vision and key outcomes
Develop a sustainable process versus a one-time project
ITS 835
Chapter 3
ERM at Mars, Incorporated: ERM for Strategy and Operations
Dr. Oussama Saafein
Introduction
• Mars’ ERM history
• Global rollout
• Reporting
• Operating workshops
• Conclusion
Mars ERM History
•
•
•
•
Mars, Incorporated
•
•
•
Migration to non-family 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 approachwon
Phase 1
•
Failed due to being impractical and overly complex
Phase 2
•
Simpler andtargeted
Planning Workshops
•
•
•
Alignment between Senior goals and ERM
Started with simpletemplate
•
Operating plan initiativesheet
•
•
•
•
Objective
Score
Risk column
Risk treatmentcolumn
Management team met to define and rank
•
•
Risks
Risk treatments
•
Changed label from “mitigations”
GlobalRollout
•
•
Used lessons learned from pilot
Workshopshelped to identify
•
•
•
Gaps in risk management readiness
High-risk initiatives
Ongoing activities with unexpected high risk
Reporting
•
Color-coding adds
•
•
•
Urgency
Clarity
Score represents
•
Confidence ofmeeting
goals
Reporting,cont’d.
Reporting,cont’d.
Reporting,cont’d.
Operating Workshops
•
•
Several ongoing changes
Technology
•
•
•
Excel ->purpose-built software
ERM supports aggregation
•
•
Word ->Excel
More complete view of organizational impact of risk
Continual template evolution
•
Added risk treatment owners and due dates
Summary
•
Mars receivedanawardfortheirERM
•
•
Corporate Executive Boards’ “Force of IdeasAward” for ERM
KeyfactorsforERM success
•
•
•
Alignment with Mars’ goals and objectives
Flexiblility
Being Realistic
ITS 835
CHAPTER5
ERM in Practice at the University of California Health System
Dr. Oussama Saafein
INTRODUCTION
•
•
•
University of California’s ERM
Technology
Premium rebateprogram
•
•
•
Professional Liability Prescription Program (PLPP)
ERM and the Center for Health Quality and Innovation
Protected health information value estimator
•
PHIve
UNIVERSITYOFCALIFORNIA’SERM
•
•
•
•
•
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 forERM
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 incorporatestechnology
•
•
Initial phases
•
•
•
•
ERM information system (ERMIS)
Simple risk assessment tools
Dashboards
Control, mitigation, monitoring, survey
Dashboard system
•
•
Based onKPIs
Visual indicators
ERM PROCESS
ERMIS DASHBOARDS
UC MMR (MY MANAGED RISK) PORTAL
UC’SAPPROACHTOEVALUATINGINCIDENTS, EVENTS, AND
CLAIMS
PREMIUM REBATEPROGRAM
•
•
•
•
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 andregulatory
Operational
Clinical
SUMMARY
•
•
•
•
•
Riskisapartofallorganizations
ERM assists organizationsinmanagingallrisk
UC deliberatelyadvancedERM toreduceoverallrisk
UCOfficeofRiskmanagement updatesriskplansinan ongoingeffort
TechnologyisacornerstoneofUC’sERM

Purchase answer to see full
attachment