| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision |
| articles:a_matter_of_risk [2020/02/13 11:25] – [A Matter of "Risk"] rrandall | articles:a_matter_of_risk [2020/02/29 10:48] – [A Matter of "Risk"] rrandall |
|---|
| ====== A Matter of "Risk" ====== | ====== A Matter of "Risk" ====== |
| |
| When it comes to defining the word "//risk//", ISO has several competing definitions; in various "official" ISO documents. And these are in further conflict with non-ISO industry standards As one would expect, these differences have created conflict within ISO and confusion amongst users. The problem appears to stem from ISO attempting to create a "one-size fits all" definition for "risk" (initially appearing in ISO/IEC Directives-Part 1, Annex SL), while failing to recognize that there are different "types" of risks. | When it comes to defining the word "//risk//", ISO has several competing definitions; in various "official" ISO documents. And these are in further conflict with non-ISO industry standards As one would expect, these differences have created conflict within ISO and confusion amongst users. The problem appears to stem from ISO attempting to create a "one-size fits all" definition for "risk" (through ISO/IEC Directives-Part 1, Annex SL), while failing to recognize that there are different "types" of risks. |
| |
| This article will discuss two of the most "commonly" used definitions. | This article will discuss two of the most "commonly" used definitions. |
| In the above example, there is an implied "//hope//" or "//preference//" for the "positive" risk. | In the above example, there is an implied "//hope//" or "//preference//" for the "positive" risk. |
| |
| The 4-minute video below explains "Positive vs. Negative Risks on Projects": | The 4-minute video below //explains// "Positive vs. Negative Risks on Projects": |
| |
| {{ youtube>pRUF2Uwu62U?large }} | {{ youtube>pRUF2Uwu62U?large }} |
| However, "Note 5" states that the word “risk” is "sometimes" used when there is the //possibility// of only negative consequences (i.e., a "positive" consequence is impossible). In other words, ANY outcome other than the one "expected", will be negative. | However, "Note 5" states that the word “risk” is "sometimes" used when there is the //possibility// of only negative consequences (i.e., a "positive" consequence is impossible). In other words, ANY outcome other than the one "expected", will be negative. |
| |
| <note>ISO 14001:2015, "//Environmental management systems — Requirements with guidance for use//", sec. 3.2.10 contains an identical definition for "risk" EXCEPT that it does not include Note 5 & 6.</note> | <note>ISO 14001:2015, "//Environmental management systems — Requirements with guidance for use//", sec. 3.2.10 contains a definition for "risk" identical to ISO 9000:2015 EXCEPT that it does not include Note 5 & 6.</note> |
| ==== ISO Guide 73:2009 ==== | ==== ISO Guide 73:2009 ==== |
| Now that we understand how ISO 9000:2015 has defined risk, and since it contains several references to ISO Guide 73, "//Risk management — Vocabulary//" (which was reviewed and confirmed in 2016), let's take a look at they are different from one another. | Now that we understand how ISO 9000:2015 has defined risk, and since it contains several references to ISO Guide 73, "//Risk management — Vocabulary//" (which was reviewed and confirmed in 2016), let's take a look at they are different from one another. |
