Citation

Purdy G. Risk Anal. 2010; 30(6): 881-886.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2010, Society for Risk Analysis, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01442.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Last year saw the publication of IS0 31000:2009, a new globally accepted standard for risk management together with a new, associated vocabulary in ISO Guide 73:2009. These were developed through a consensus‐driven process over four years, through seven drafts, and involving the input of hundreds of risk management professionals around the world. The new standard supports a new, simple way of thinking about risk and risk management and is intended to begin the process of resolving the many inconsistencies and ambiguities that exist between many different approaches and definitions. While most decisionmakers seem to welcome the new standard and it has so far received very good reviews, it does create challenges for those who use language and approaches that are unique to their area of work but different from the new standard and guide. The need for compromise and change is the inevitable consequence of standardization