ERM two organization’s approaches to ERM similar? and differ?

he Enterprise Risk Management and its various dimensions

The ERM also can be termed as the  Enterprise Risk Management is the very approach to the coordination and the identification or recognition of potential incidents which can have an effect or negative impact on an organization  (Fraser, Simkins & Narvaez, 2014). The ERM has the responsibility to handle the management associated risks and uncertain activities alongside with the opportunities. The team of management serves with the required reasonable methods of solutions and gives the assurance for achieving the mission and objectives statically and strategically with the aid of a risk management team and its objectives. Different organizations have got different approaches to view the problems and issues that it faces and also the approaching opportunities that follow. The enterprise risk management radically builds a culture which predominately provides an awareness system for identifying risks and leads to give an insight into the best possible ways for prioritizing and handling of all kinds of risky affairs that may take place in a university or medical health system and may work as an obstacle in the way of achieving university-related programs, or research-related programs and other services that are offered to the public. Many organizations offer different types of operationalizing functions that may manage and are able enough to recognize the risks.

Different working of the ERM

The University of California has its own built enterprise risk management that offers service involving certain advantages which are again applicable upon all the essential aspects of different dimensions of learning when the university Is concern. For example, the enterprise risk management that functions inside the university of California has a sense of responsibility to work upon the uprising dimensions of risks that are if not handled at the right time may develop into a serious crisis for the enterprise (Ali, Ab Hamid & Ghani, 2019). The ERM team at the University of California serves vital information regarding the organizing and planning of the performance that is done strategically when managing or having to make the decision process such as budgeting is a concern.

Another organization can be cited as an example where the enterprise risk management headed by Forrest Mars of the MARS group works towards achieving the complete risk factors of management and serves its complete commitment and dedication towards the goals of the company. They also have similar tactics when it comes to effective enterprise risk management factors. For instance, the ERM of MARS also handles and identifies all kinds of serious issues related to business and caters to serve with the best kind of managerial programs for handling the risks. They tend to take surveys before stretching a hand of help to the clients. A group survey gives them a better idea about the depth of the issue and better management policies are adapted to coordinate with the risks and management plan. The enterprise risk management team organizes certain revolutionary approaches to serve the crises even before it hits the organization.

There are of course few definite differences when a comparison is drawn between the two organizations, the Enterprise risk management team of the Forrest Mars headed, MARS and the University of California. For California, the associated health administration includes several clinical programs that are handled by the risk management team of the enterprise efficiently. But the MARS has got no such associate team (Hiebl, Duller & Neubauer, 2019). The process that the ERM of MARS involves is a much complex process where resolution processes are adopted and these resolutions appear more impractical.

Generally, the Enterprise Risk Management system aims at assisting in the evaluation of the Risks and mitigation strategies employed by an organization. It is a vital instrument in the management of an institution (Kopia et al., 2017). In the case of Mars and the University of California Health systems, there are notable similarities. Both systems are used in the management of the institutions by evaluating the risks and mitigation strategies in the case of the University of California’s health system and aligning the goals and objectives in the case of Mars. This was based on the set principles of the organization.

The significant difference in the system is on the orientation whereby the UC’s system was risk-oriented in that it aimed at mitigating the risks that the institution may face. In the case of Mars, the system was goal oriented. The system aimed at achieving the set goals and objectives that were aligned with guiding principles of the organization. UC’s embraced technology in its operation that was not the case on Mars.

These differences would have been used to complement the systems. For instance, since UC embraced technology in its operation, mars could have employed the same strategy that would bolster its performance. The UC system would have borrowed the idea of aligning its systems to the set objectives. This would improve its efficiency, as it would be focused on achieving the set goals. ERMs should concentrate on the evaluation of risks the Mars system, would have focused on evaluating the risks prevalent. It is through this aspect that a mitigation strategy would always be available making the organization successful. UC’s system should also be flexible, as it is the case of Mars.