During the following group meetings i gathered that the impact of risk within NHS can be reduced by the monitors complying with the risk management procedures. In which for the monitors to assess NHS foundation trust, they would need to undertake a risk assessment, which involves careful examination of what, in your work, could cause harm to people, so that you can weigh up whether you have taken enough precautions or should do more to prevent harm. Workers and others have a right to be protected from harm caused by a failure to take reasonable control measures.
The benefits for assessing such risk appropriately would deliver safer environment for NHS and monitors to work in as well as the public. Nevertheless, even though identifying such risk and recording your findings, Risk identification is a continuous organised process for identifying risk events which may affect the safety within the working environment. It is repeated at different phases of the project life cycle (see Appendix A for diagram and further explanation). 2 If the NHS Foundation Trust is at risk economically or financially, this would mean the Monitors would also financial crisis as they normally deal with the risk management.
Therefore there are a number of techniques for risk identification including, but not limited to, brainstorming, checklists, prompt lists, questionnaires, as well as various diagramming approaches. The techniques may be used to identify both opportunities and threats. Moreover, additional approaches for a Monitor would have to include strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis, constraints and assumptions analysis or force field analysis to identify positive and negative influences on the achievement of objectives.
As of risk analysis, it helps us to understand and the effects of risk and the sensitivity and the critical areas. If the risk management happens at a high rate, the issue will have a major impact on the system and is likely to cause significant disruption in service (a very visible event). On the other hand, at a medium rate, the issue will have some impact on systems and be visible to a number of Monitors. In a low rate, a possible disruption in service for one non-critical user is expected, whereas non service disruptions or negative effects are expected. Also, any negative impact can be corrected without significant effort or visibility.
Although, sometimes the not applicable impact is irrelevant to this project or operation, whereas there are no information it is impossible to determine probability with the current available information as it must come from an outside source. But if it is to be determined then additional study will be required to consider high impact until otherwise identified. The overall conclusion is that Monitor has continued to make progress to develop its risk management framework, by linking risk management to strategic objectives and reviewing as part of the performance process. However, there are still areas to develop further (Appendix B).
Whilst there are a number of performance improvement observations to further develop the risk management framework, as they are mainly focussed on further improving the quality of risk information captured; and formalising roles, responsibilities and accountabilities with regard to risk management of the recommendations identified in the 2009 review. Although, they have not yet been fully addressed and these have been incorporated rather than the risk they pose to Monitor. All recommendations have taken into account the size and structure of Monitor to ensure they are proportionate to the size of the organisation and add further value.
Furthermore, risk management may mean that Monitors have less reason not to be affected of the value of their records, or over the possibilities of such risks that would create a situation that may financially corrupt a firm for years. Bibliography * APPENDICES Appendix A – As this diagram was taken from the lecture note, I have used it to show that each industry sector involves specific requirements, tasks, and procedures when it comes to projects, but also different industry sectors have different needs for life cycle management.
And paying close attention to such details is the difference between doing things well and doing extremely well as project managers. Appendix B – Performance improvement observations 2009 Appendix C – Impact – What will happen if the risk becomes an issue3. Reading Logs 1st Group Meeting Date: 07-10-10 Time: 16. 00 Hrs Present: Ron Ronaldson, Walter Bravo Hill, Jose Manuel Maria Da Conceicao, John, Myrna Sigar and Naz Mariwan. Discussed: 1. Regulatory body-QAA chosen, group to confirm at next meeting on 14-10-10 at 16. 00 Hrs 1. Group will present what work is to be done by each member at next meeting (Task Orientation)