logo
Call us: +44 (0)1865 244727

  • Home
  • Scope
  • News
  • Products
    • RADAR
    • CALL-OFF PROJECTS
  • Clients
  • Contact
  • How we work
    • Independent
      • Common law orthodoxies
      • Sensationalism
      • Expert witness
      • Regulation and Politics
      • Tied services
    • Up-to-date
      • Timely
      • Insurance Scenarios
      • Probabilistic Methods
    • Expert
      • Personal Injury
      • Trends
    • Innovative
  • Database
    • Member’s login
    • Member’s Settings
    • Register
    • RADAR Database
  • Recent projects
    • EMFs
    • STRESS AT WORK
    • WHIPLASH
    • WELDING RODS: MANGANESE EXPOSURE
    • ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE
    • Other Projects



Ready for a change?

Sep 18, 2012
by Andrew@Reliabilityoxford.co.uk
0 Comment
The author was asked to prepare an IMC lecture, to be presented in Cambridge. The lecture began with some good advice before moving on to examples of emerging risk: phosphates, carbon nanotubes, diesel exhausts and breast cancer. Subscribers to the Radar service can get the technical details on these topics; the good advice is summarised below.

Change is continuous.

The problem:

Head office could spend all their time analysing changes in exposure. In practice, trigger levels are used to reduce wasted effort. These thresholds filter out the noise, result – only the big changes are to be evaluated and re-judged. If the portfolio is big enough the net effect of small changes, may average out.

Sounds good, but the human response to this approach is always to make sure that any estimate of change comes to just below the trigger level.  Moving exposure out of the reckoning is not good practice, but may be convenient both in terms of apparent competitiveness and gives increased confidence to those charged with steering the ship. In effect, real change moves off the balance sheet. A chance to steer away from the ice-field is missed.

Emerging liability risks are a great example. Size estimates are very uncertain at first. Subjective factors have a fairly free reign; probably driven by fashion and untested assumption. Firm opinion, compensates for factual uncertainty. A substantial change, can be demoted to obscurity. A minor change can be blown out of all proportion.

How can this be turned around?

Review triggers.

One very successful strategy is to finish every evaluation of change with a simple question: “What would need to change for this decision to become worthy of review“. By asking this question, the experts who have demoted or  inflated a given topic are required to focus on the decisive facts or opinions. They then set the trigger  for review. By definition, when that trigger occurs, it will get their meaningful attention. The very least that will happen is that they must find a new review trigger.

Helpfully, people can be tasked with looking for that particular change or producing a more rounded view of the assumptions that have been made. Review triggers can be quantitative e.g. the number of exposed staff exceeds 10,000, or qualitative e.g. scientists find objective evidence that this exposure plays a key role in disease causation.

Over time, a portfolio of review triggers is created. Lengthy impenetrable lists of emerging liability risks can be taken to a more influential level. With experience, the time-scale before a review trigger is likely to be reached can be estimated.

Correlations:

Quite often a given review trigger e.g. a legal opinion, will appear under several topic headings. Correlated loss becomes anticipated, the use of multiple individual thresholds becomes self-evidently illegitimate, a compound threshold is required.

Change recommendations:

Those same experts should also be asked, “if this change occurs, what should we do about it?” Often the decisive facts or opinions point very strongly at a specific management option. Having written it down, the readiness for change is increased. Having considered the actions, the review trigger can be be more accurately described/specified.

Summary:

This strategy increases readiness for change, increases objectivity and leads to the identification of correlations which would otherwise be missed. The final decision, to change or not, is a judgment that should only be placed in the hands of trusted, experienced business leaders. The review triggers strategy provides part of the platform for that judgment. It reduces the chance that junior staff might effectively take strategic decisions.

 

Social Share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

*
*

captcha *

Search Documents


Categories

  • Causation
    • de minimis
    • material contribution
  • Date of knowledge
  • Diagnosis
  • Duty of Care
  • Exposure estimation data
  • Mitigation
  • Motor related injury
  • News
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • November 2020
  • January 2020
  • November 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • April 2018
  • November 2017
  • July 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • November 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • July 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012

© Re: Liability (Oxford) Ltd. 2012. All rights reserved.
Website Design by The Big Picture