Managing risk

at
Categories
Tags

 

Image of a target with darts at the bull’s eye and the text Case Study against a wall background
Image Source: www.istockphoto.com

This activity will address module outcomes 1, 3, 4, and 5. Upon completion of this activity, you will be able to:

Identify the need for effective risk management. (CO 1, 4, 5, 6)
Analyze how leaders and organizations may manage risk differently. (CO 1, 5)
Define the term risk. (CO 4)
Evaluate what is a threat. (CO 1, 2, 3)
A case study is a short description of a real situation. Analyzing a case study can provide the opportunity to apply course concepts to a real scenario. The following case illustrates how one organization manages risk.

General Instructions for Case Study Assignment:

Read the following case study:

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2015). Exelon corporation cybersecurity supply chain risk management [PDF file size 101 KB]. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20170101182253/https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/itl/csd/NIST_USRP-Exelon-Case-Study.pdf

Write a short paper on the following:

Give an overview of Exelon.
What does it do?
Why is security, cybersecurity in particular, so essential to this company?
How is this different from another organization like the Office of Personnel Management?
Do the corporate objectives differ or are they the same?
What are some steps that Exelon has taken to address the changing risk landscape?
What are some challenges it faces?
How does it manage cyber risk?
What are the processes and best practices that Exelon relies on to narrow the scope of risk?
How will the organization know that its process is working?
What should the organization do if it does not work?

Sample Solution

Another significant explanation that conciliation was so dubious was that it affirmed that Chamberlain misjudged Adolf Hitler and his drive for global control which straightforwardly undermined British public safety. On September 30th, 1938, Chamberlain marked the Munich Pact surrendering Sudetenland to Germany and in doing as such, consoled the British public that this would be Germany’s last regional interest.” Chamberlain’s slip-up was to placed his trust into Hitler and is portrayed by antiquarian Keith Middlemas as ‘strategy of deception.’ This revisionist view tested the ethical quality of conciliation and recommended that the arrangement was one of ineptitude and self-duplicity.’ The British Prime Minister misjudged the advantage of Hitler, pacification depended on the deception that Hitler would stop after Munich, Chamberlain accepting his aspirations were restricted to the amendment of the Treaty of Versailles which could be settled through exchange and arrangements in spite of proof of German rearmament. The misstatement of Germany made settlement dubious as he wrongly took Hitler’s statement, that he was a confided in pioneer and as indicated by Nick Smart he “understood that the world could see he had been taken for a sucker” and ‘it was difficult to accept.” This was additionally compounded by the conviction that Adolf Hitler was “favorable to British.” His rehashed confirmations that he respected the British Empire and could never do battle with Britain added to Chamberlain’s fancy. Student of history Patrick Buchanan contends that there was no requirement for GB to pronounce battle on Germany in September 1939 as Hitler didn’t need a conflict with Britain, his inclination being a coalition with GB against socialism Russia. However ahead of schedule as May 1933 Alfred Rosenberg seemed to be sent by Hitler to search out amicable contacts and this combined with the conviction that Germany’s genuine complaints ought to be tended to, Chamberlain accepted that Germany would be happy with concessions utilizing discretion yet this was to be just impermanent as the control of Czechoslovakia was to show. Chamberlain’s three visits

This question has been answered.

Get Answer