As a layman I found it impenitrable. I tried to look up 'risk ownership' but it wasn't defined. As was 'corporate-level' or 'corporate-level risk'. (This is important since often the authors will want you to assume the buzzwords you hear mean what you assume they mean instead of what they actually mean.)
The nut:
In the end, this study argues for a corporate risk model founded on persistent senior leader dialogue. The concept should be fine-tuned to monitor and adapt to persistent change in strategic conditions, offering senior leadership clear strategic choices.
Given the year (2017) my guess is this was written by someone unhappy with the 'dialogue' with the White House adminstration at that time.
8 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 31.0 ms ] thread[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20170709015407/https://ssi.armyw...
[2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20170720033615/https://ssi.armyw...
> The study team found three clear vulnerabilities or shortcomings in current risk convention.
> First, it is excessively focused on near-term military threats.
> Second, it lacks a meaningful connection back to concrete defense objectives.
> Finally, third, it has proven to be an insufficient catalyst for essential post-primacy defense innovation and adaptation.
The nut:
In the end, this study argues for a corporate risk model founded on persistent senior leader dialogue. The concept should be fine-tuned to monitor and adapt to persistent change in strategic conditions, offering senior leadership clear strategic choices.
Given the year (2017) my guess is this was written by someone unhappy with the 'dialogue' with the White House adminstration at that time.
There’s so many sources on this but the official stance seems to be that “yea shit happened, let’s move on”.
What a sad and horrible start.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/opinion/dei-trainings-eff...