Dennis raised the question about the An introduction to GRC/BPX session: TechEd Berlin 15th October, 2pm. This question is natural, because it includes the element of “foreseeable” as well. From the other hand audit can only work on rules, which are agreed (in the past). If these rules weren’t sufficient regarding its coverage, we need additional ones. But we have to take care about an “oversized control”. We need to think about responsibility and future business domains of industries and markets. This might imply a shift regarding the role of current players. This information was already mentioned in SAP Banking at Sibos in Vienna (1): we are there, published during the 2008 Sibos event.
Look into the history and the development of Soccer. In the context of rules and governance there was a set called “laws of the Game”, which are still valid over 130 years. Already at that point in time there was a penalty as well as the rule of “fairness”. The prices for transfers of players, the income, and other aspects changed soccer into business for at least some clubs. Aligned with the competition among teams within a league, also the value of a “lost” game got monetary impact. Additional rules had to be agreed like the “yellow-red” card and the 4th referee. Nevertheless last European Soccer Championship delivered a lot of common joy, as we know it form festivals. Still for the majority of the clubs soccer has limited relationship with business. Therefore soccer delivers values for the society.
The question about a reduction on injuries and an increase in fairness is not answered by additional regulations.
Traffic in Germany is a bit different compared to other European countries due to the “only partly” applied speed restrictions. In those years, where racing became popular in formula one and motor biking, some of the drivers on German highways believed that these roads were an extension of circuits, only for their personal purpose. Because cars with larger engines became affordable, there was a change in attitude to express this power in the back. Hurry, urgency, and “lack in time” were the typical excuses to behave risky and sometimes out of control (with very bad accidents). These necessity arguments were used also in business schedules and conversations. The road traffic regulation at that time already included paragraphs about respect and attention regarding other partners on the road, but they didn’t influenced driving behavior. Another aspect is the change in supply chain provisioning, called JIT. This scenario increased the number of rolling trucks and the associated elephant races.
The increase of the oil prices changed the behavior on the road; suddenly travel times were calculated more flexible and some types of racing disappeared completely.
Back to the financial markets and the targets of GRC: one part of risk FS companies face at the market is driven by competition, globalization, and short term expectations. Especially for the subprime case, it was more than evident, that this model can’t be finished successfully. But there were enough players who joined that circus and target to get a part of the cake. No a couple of years later we ask the unpretty questions about the why and the predictability.
Are there equivalents to “fairness in sports” and “oil prices”.? I believe yes, but that would imply a change in the way to understand business, service provisioning, responsibility, and the capabilities “to say no” and “not to join certain parties”. This is beyond auditing and regulations. That will affect employments, skills, and kpi’s as well as organizational workflow.
Kind regards Paul