Transforming under deep uncertainty: A strategic perspective on risk management

Companies increasingly face the need for transformation in today’s rapidly changing business environment, characterized by major shifts in technology, regulation, and customer behavior. A lack of strategic risk insight and foresight leaves many incumbents insufficiently prepared in the face of such deep uncertainty. We argue that traditional risk management falls short because it predominantly focuses on strategy execution while leaving strategy formulation largely untouched. Moreover, an administrative-heavy risk management process can create strategic inertia and a misleading sense of control. In today’s dynamic business context, companies must not only increase the speed and impact of their strategy execution but also continuously explore the development of new strategies in response to disruptive events or emerging opportunities. Our research shows how leading companies develop a strategic risk management (SRM) capability to increase their resilience and agility in response to deep uncertainty. SRM takes a strategic, forward-looking perspective and focuses on strengthening processes, people, and practices for purposefully integrating risk into the strategy formulation process. This article offers a framework with three proven configurations of content and timing integration, risk management roles, and leading practices that enable effective SRM.     

Inventory-driven costs

In the 199os, Hewlett-Packard's PC business was struggling to turn a dollar, despite the company's success in winning market share. By 1997, margins on its PCs were as thin as a silicon wafer, and some product lines hadn't turned a profit since 1993. The problem had everything to do with the PC industry's notoriously short product cycles and brutal product and component price deflation. A common rule of thumb was that the value of a fully assembled PC decreased 1% a week. In such an environment, inventory costs become critical. But not just the inventory costs companies traditionally track, HP found, after a thorough review of the problem. The standard "holding cost of inventory"--the capital and physical costs of inventory--accounted for only about 10% of HP's inventory costs. The greater risks, it turned out, resided in four other, essentially hidden costs, which stemmed from mismatches between demand and supply: Component devaluation costs for components still held in production; Price protection costs incurred when product prices drop on the goods distributors still have on their shelves; Product return costs that have to be absorbed when distributors return and receive refunds on overstock items, and; Obsolescence costs for products still unsold when new models are introduced. By developing metrics to track those costs in a consistent way throughout the PC division, HP has found it can manage its supply chains with much more sophistication. Gone are the days of across-the-board measures such as,"Everyone must cut inventories by 20% by the end of the year," which usually resulted in a flurry of cookie-cutter lean production and just-in-time initiatives. Now, each product group is free to choose the supply chain configuration that best suits its needs. Other companies can follow HP's example.     

The Importance of Board Risk Oversight in Times of Crisis

Journal of Financial Services Research - This study investigates the relationship between board risk oversight practices at financial institutions in the EU and systemic risk during the sovereign...