The young boy asked the old man, “why a fast running horse is better than the slow running horse”? The old man said, “it has developed the habit to produce more power so that it can run up to ten times faster than the slow horse” The youngster said, “and what if the horse is running in the wrong direction”? The old man smiled and said, “then definitely it has the proportionate factor for wasting the efforts ten times quicker than the slower horse” The young man said, ” and what if other horses are following him too” The older man said, “off course it will mislead all those horses too!” “Then why all other horses follow the faster horse” “Because that attracts them but all that glitters is not gold sometimes”.
The BCG matrix, also called the Growth-share matrix, was developed by Bruce Henderson of the Boston Consulting Group, a private global management consulting firm, in the early 1970s to help companies properly assess cash demands of products, financial resource allocation across product lines, and investment/divestment decisions to improve the return on investment (ROI) and maximize future growth and profitability.
It is clear the rate of change in today’s work environments has been aggravating with more emphasis nowadays on smaller teams, incremental and rapid delivery, faster payback, and frequent project status reporting. This acceleration has instigated uncertainty that forced organisations to start supporting their strategic planning with a longer term perspective of planning called scenario planning or scenario thinking/analysis. Scenario planning was established by Royal Dutch Shell during the 1973 petroleum shortage period and was adopted later by many big companies like US Steel, Microsoft, AT&T, and IBM.
The responsibilities of risk managers have developed considerably in the last few years to the extent that they are now moving beyond operational and hazard risks to nonoperational, financial, and strategic risks, spawning the evolution of the so-called integrated or enterprise risk management (ERM) (Colquitt, Hoyt et al. 1999).
There exist several mitigation strategies that help managers in understanding risks and their impact on the business and on the organizational objectives. These treatment strategies are mainly branched into four common categories; risk avoidance or elimination, risk transference or share, risk mitigation, and risk acceptance. The choice of which of these methods to implement depends on the kind of the adopted decision-making model and on certain weighted, influential, organizational factors that should be taken into consideration in prioritizing, evaluating, and resolving risks. Since elimination of risk is unrealizable or almost impossible (Cervone 2006), managers should utilize the least cost methodology and the most appropriate control to lessen risks to a level corresponding to minimal impact. Besides, priority should be given to mitigating severe or high-impact risks since it would be impractical to address all recognized risks (Stoneburner, Goguen et al. 2002).