Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
articles:a_matter_of_risk [2020/05/22 11:37] – [SAE AS9100:2009 (Rev. C) & AS9100:2016 (Rev. D)] rrandallarticles:a_matter_of_risk [2020/06/07 11:35] – [ISO 31000:2018] rrandall
Line 131: Line 131:
 At this point, "Note 1" becomes nonsensical because there is no definition or use of the word "address" relating to a consequence, outcome, or result. So for the moment, let's ignore the use of that word and focus on how ISO 31000:2018, "Note 1" states that a "risk" can "//create or result in opportunities __and__ threats//".  At this point, "Note 1" becomes nonsensical because there is no definition or use of the word "address" relating to a consequence, outcome, or result. So for the moment, let's ignore the use of that word and focus on how ISO 31000:2018, "Note 1" states that a "risk" can "//create or result in opportunities __and__ threats//". 
  
-In effect, ISO 31000:2018 is stating that “opportunities __and__ threats” are two sides of the same “risk” coin; because the word "and" means that the two exist simultaniously!+In effect, ISO 31000:2018 is stating that “opportunities __and__ threats” are two sides of the same “risk” coin; because the word "and" means that the two exist simultaneously!
  
 It's important to note that risks typically result from an "opportunity". For example, when presented with an investment "opportunity", taking action could result in either a profit, a loss, or no change in value. While taking no action would preserve the current assets (no change), avoid loss, and forgo any profits that the investment would have yielded. It's important to note that risks typically result from an "opportunity". For example, when presented with an investment "opportunity", taking action could result in either a profit, a loss, or no change in value. While taking no action would preserve the current assets (no change), avoid loss, and forgo any profits that the investment would have yielded.
 +
 +The "Standards Related Document SRD-4739, Training Package on NATO Risk Management Guide for Acquisition Programmes" (Edition A Version 1 JULY 2015) supports and promotes this concept:
 +
 +<blockquote>
 +Conceptual – Risk can be seen as a source of variability which is a two-sided construct. The double side nature of variability is captured in the definition of risk that includes both positive and negative consequences. An opportunity is also an uncertain event since it is a possible future event. So both threats and opportunities are covered by this same description of risk as “uncertainty that matters”.</blockquote>
  
 While none of the above ISO documents define "opportunity", [[https://www.dictionary.com/browse/opportunity|Dictionary.com]] does: While none of the above ISO documents define "opportunity", [[https://www.dictionary.com/browse/opportunity|Dictionary.com]] does:
Line 250: Line 255:
 However, the above definition was deleted from SAE AS9100:2016 (Rev. D) in order to accommodate the definition provided in ISO 9000:2015. BUT, the "Scope" of AS9100:2016 states: "//It is emphasized that the requirements specified in this standard are complementary (not alternative) to customer and __applicable__ statutory and __regulatory requirements__.//"  However, the above definition was deleted from SAE AS9100:2016 (Rev. D) in order to accommodate the definition provided in ISO 9000:2015. BUT, the "Scope" of AS9100:2016 states: "//It is emphasized that the requirements specified in this standard are complementary (not alternative) to customer and __applicable__ statutory and __regulatory requirements__.//" 
  
-Through an interesting turn of fortunate events, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has //rescued// the aerospace industry from dealing with the ambiguity contained in ISO 9000:2015 by defining the word "risk" in "[[https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/5.5|14 CFR § 5.5 - Definitions]]" (for general aviation safety)...+Therefore, where U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations apply, the word "risk" is defined in "[[https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/5.5|14 CFR § 5.5 - Definitions]]" (for general aviation safety) as:
  
 <blockquote>**U.S. 14 CFR § 5.5 - Definitions** \\ <blockquote>**U.S. 14 CFR § 5.5 - Definitions** \\
Line 262: Line 267:
 </blockquote> </blockquote>
  
-...and in "[[https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/401.5|U.S. 14 CFR § 401.5 - Definitions]]" (for the U.S. commercial space industry).+And in "[[https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/401.5|U.S. 14 CFR § 401.5 - Definitions]]" (for the U.S. commercial space industry) as:
  
 <blockquote>**U.S. 14 CFR § 401.5 - Definitions** \\ <blockquote>**U.S. 14 CFR § 401.5 - Definitions** \\