¿Cuál es el impacto de priorizar los riesgos estratégicos en la asignación de recursos?

Let's look at Kodak. They ignored the strategic risk of digital photography, thinking it wouldn't catch on. They allocated resources into their traditional film business. The result? Digital photography made them obsolete. Prioritizing strategic risks can help you decide where to allocate resources more effectively. For example, if disruptive technology is a big risk, you might invest in R&D to stay ahead. It's also worth noting that risks can be interrelated. Ignoring one can amplify another. For instance, ignoring a technological risk could worsen a competitive risk by letting rivals get ahead.

Prioritizing strategic risks in resource allocation has a profound impact on an organization's resilience and success. By identifying and addressing these risks, resources can be directed toward mitigating potential threats and capitalizing on opportunities, which enhances strategic decision-making. Allocating resources based on risk prioritization also helps ensure a more efficient and effective use of available assets, fostering a more balanced and adaptive strategic approach. This proactive stance not only safeguards the organization from unexpected setbacks but also positions it to seize competitive advantages and achieve long-term goals, ultimately driving sustainable growth and value creation.

Blockbuster didn't prioritize the strategic risk of online streaming services like Netflix. They stuck with their physical stores and late fees. The result? Netflix took over, and Blockbuster became history. Different companies have different tolerances for risk, and this should be part of how they prioritize. For instance, a well-established company might have a lower risk appetite than a startup and thus might focus on less risky but more guaranteed areas for resource allocation.

For instance, let's say you're running a small online retail business. You might use a risk matrix to plot out risks like: High likelihood & high impact: Website downtime during the holiday shopping season. Low likelihood & high impact: A warehouse fire. High likelihood & low impact: A few negative product reviews. There are limitations of using a risk matrix. While it's a straightforward tool, it can oversimplify complex risks. Also, it might not account for "tail risks" or those rare but disastrous events that are hard to predict. That's why many businesses supplement the risk matrix with other methods like scenario planning or sensitivity analysis.

Imagine you're the CEO of a tech startup that has just secured Series A funding. One high-priority risk might be the fast-paced development of technology that could make your product obsolete. Another might be a key competitor ramping up their marketing. Therefore, you'd allocate more resources to R&D and marketing. A low-priority risk might be the cost of office supplies going up; it might affect your budget but is unlikely to break the business. Once you allocate resources to a high-priority risk and mitigate it, it may become a low-priority risk. This is often seen in iterative risk management models where the outcome of risk-mitigation efforts feeds back into the risk assessment phase.

Let's say you run a clean energy startup. You identify two major strategic risks: 1) the possibility of fossil fuel companies lobbying against clean energy, and 2) technological advancements making your current solutions obsolete. By prioritizing these, you allocate resources to public relations campaigns and R&D. This not only aligns with your mission but makes you more agile in policy shifts and keeps you ahead in the tech game. Sometimes the marketing team might see a risk that R&D doesn't, or vice versa. Collecting a 360-degree view can further improve strategic alignment and reduce blind spots.