Understanding risk using:

Alternatives evaluations

U-alternatives evaluation
RSI-U square-512w

Every challenge presents multiple paths forward. At RSI, our evaluations thoroughly explore these alternatives, striking a considered balance between potential pitfalls and rewards. Such comprehensive insights allow institutions to make decisions that are both protective and progressively advantageous.

Performing an alternatives evaluation in the context of understanding risk is aimed at comparing different strategies, methods, or courses of action to manage or mitigate identified risks. The process is inherently comparative and is designed to produce insights that can inform decision-making.

RSI’s first step in this process is to define the criteria for evaluation. These could be quantitative, such as cost, return on investment (ROI), or projected impact reduction, or qualitative, such as ease of implementation, alignment with organizational goals, or social and environmental effects. The criteria often depend on the specific risks being addressed and the goals of the risk management effort.

Next comes the identification of alternative options that will later allow for the management of these risks. These alternatives could range from different technological solutions to various operational changes or even strategic shifts. At this stage, brainstorming, expert consultations, and reviews of existing literature or case studies can be useful for generating a comprehensive list of options.

Once alternatives are identified, the next step is to assess them against the pre-defined criteria. For quantitative criteria, this often involves detailed analyses such as cost-benefit analysis, simulations, or statistical modeling. For qualitative criteria, methodologies like multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) or even simple ranking scales may be employed.

In more complex scenarios, sensitivity analyses can also be beneficial. These analyses help to understand how robust an alternative is to changes in assumptions or conditions. For example, if an alternative’s effectiveness significantly diminishes with minor changes in conditions, it might be less desirable compared to a more robust option.

After the assessment, RSI ranks or scores each alternative based on its performance against the criteria. This facilitates a side-by-side comparison that aids in decision-making. Decision matrices or decision trees are commonly used visualization tools at this stage.

Finally, in an eventual management phase, the selected alternative(s) move into the implementation phase, followed by monitoring to assess effectiveness. It’s important to note that the selection of an alternative is not the end but rather a point in an ongoing cycle of risk management. Post-implementation, it is essential to evaluate the outcomes to ensure that the alternative is effectively mitigating the risk and to make adjustments as necessary.

In summary, performing an RSI alternatives evaluation for understanding risk involves defining criteria, identifying alternative options, assessing these options against the criteria, performing sensitivity analyses, ranking or scoring the alternatives, and then moving into implementation and monitoring. Each step is designed to provide comparative insights that inform the decision-making process in risk management.