This case clearly shows how the RMF/ECRG framework helps break a new business into concrete operational-risk exposures. Using loss data from Trading and Sales makes the process practical, and the slides highlight how different functions face different top risks. The reminder to go beyond historical losses and add scenario analysis (page 15) is especially useful for building a complete, forward-looking view.
The Case 3.1 solution was a great demonstration of how the North Star actually works in practice.Instead of pretending to be oil-trading experts, the team started with exposures, then used historical loss data to anchor the analysis, and finally adjusted for new risks like physical asset damage.
What I found most valuable is how systematic it was: RMF → exposures → loss experience → refined ORP → forward-looking adjustments.It showed that Op Risk isn’t about knowing the business—it’s about having a disciplined process that prevents us from walking into a new venture with a “fake map.”
I found this case a good reminder that mapping exposure is not the same as understanding exposure. What stood out to me is how easy it is for an organization to feel covered just because the documentation exists, while what actually matters the most is missing. This also warns that operational risk works aren't just filling in templates or check tick-boxes, they require a more active approach and willingness to revisit assumptions before a crisis take place.
Resilience manual is always important. People should look forward in the business environment and think about the potential change in the future. In this case, we should follow instructions on the current resilience process we have, and improve the parts where is impractical.
Really thought-provoking piece. I was struck by the analogy of a “fake map” vs a “North Star” and how it applies to risk leadership: when the heading is unclear or artificially defined, teams may end up following a map that looks right but doesn’t actually lead anywhere meaningful. The question “What is the Head of Op Risk pointing to?” invites deep reflection about whether the strategic guidance is genuine or simply decorative.
I especially appreciated how the article challenges us to ask whether our guiding metrics or objectives are truly directional or just cosmetic signposts. For someone like me—currently studying management and risk systems—it underscores that alignment and purpose matter far more than ticking boxes.
This case clearly shows how the RMF/ECRG framework helps break a new business into concrete operational-risk exposures. Using loss data from Trading and Sales makes the process practical, and the slides highlight how different functions face different top risks. The reminder to go beyond historical losses and add scenario analysis (page 15) is especially useful for building a complete, forward-looking view.
The Case 3.1 solution was a great demonstration of how the North Star actually works in practice.Instead of pretending to be oil-trading experts, the team started with exposures, then used historical loss data to anchor the analysis, and finally adjusted for new risks like physical asset damage.
What I found most valuable is how systematic it was: RMF → exposures → loss experience → refined ORP → forward-looking adjustments.It showed that Op Risk isn’t about knowing the business—it’s about having a disciplined process that prevents us from walking into a new venture with a “fake map.”
I found this case a good reminder that mapping exposure is not the same as understanding exposure. What stood out to me is how easy it is for an organization to feel covered just because the documentation exists, while what actually matters the most is missing. This also warns that operational risk works aren't just filling in templates or check tick-boxes, they require a more active approach and willingness to revisit assumptions before a crisis take place.
Resilience manual is always important. People should look forward in the business environment and think about the potential change in the future. In this case, we should follow instructions on the current resilience process we have, and improve the parts where is impractical.
Really thought-provoking piece. I was struck by the analogy of a “fake map” vs a “North Star” and how it applies to risk leadership: when the heading is unclear or artificially defined, teams may end up following a map that looks right but doesn’t actually lead anywhere meaningful. The question “What is the Head of Op Risk pointing to?” invites deep reflection about whether the strategic guidance is genuine or simply decorative.
I especially appreciated how the article challenges us to ask whether our guiding metrics or objectives are truly directional or just cosmetic signposts. For someone like me—currently studying management and risk systems—it underscores that alignment and purpose matter far more than ticking boxes.