« Brooklyn Tornado | Main | Click Fraud Network »

August 14, 2007



Hi John,

Note that Jack's structure, as presented, is designed to be as complex as possible. It is a reductionist approach, a mind-mapping of all elements that should/might be beneficial.

Now 100% of organizations out there are performing all of those functions listed, they just are doing it in a rather ad-hoc method, or the analysis is done by "blink" or "gut".

I, like yourself, read Sandman as soon as Phil posted it to the mailing list (that may make us both geeks, but so be it). Two things come to mind:

1.) Outrage x Hazard may be a means to express risk within the context of the organization, but I like probability of loss event x probable magnitude of loss better for quantitative analysis.

2.) The term "Outrage" suggests that risk cannot or should not be discussed in a rational manner. One thing about FAIR and Jack specifically is the desire to drop a FUD approach. Maybe this reflects an optimists view of the abilities of data/business owners, but in the long run I think it's more beneficial to our profession than, as you term it, manipulation.

Also, bravo on the application of personality types. This is brilliant, and something maybe we can talk about at more length at some point.


John, I think I agree that the Sandman proposals are good to see, but troubling. They hide the underlying problems. Manipulation begets manipulation.

Short of actual psychological counselling (and, Sandman concurs in not recommending we say that to our bosses ;) I've only ever seen one approach to break out of that trap, which is the fifth discipline stuff.

Also, I thought he missed one important reason: if the VP can guess it won't happen on her watch, why should she spend her budget to return investment to the her successor?

It's really tough. I wish I'd been at the metrics shindig, tho!

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Risk Reading

Blog powered by Typepad