Dhairya MitawalkarVice President| Macquarie Holdings USANew York, Ny, United States
Hello everyone,
I have been looking at frameworks to quantify risks.
To provide context, this is for scenarios where a particular project or system enhancement is determined a 'must-have' although it provides no quantifiable benefits. This could be to meet a specific regulation or to enhance an existing regulatory obligation process (within Financial Services), or some other reason. From a prioritization standpoint, these items always take precedence over others irrespective of whether the other items would deliver significant cost savings or revenue generation opportunities.
I am trying to determine a way where the risks associated with not enhancing an existing process can be quantified to make it easier to compare with projects delivering tangible benefits.
I would appreciate any suggestions or thoughts on how you approach this. Every firm is different, so I am not looking for a template (although that would help!). I am more interested in how people handle this issue in their respective fields.
This still looks like a feature/project prioritization exercise to me - a simple scoring model that provides an objective, balanced weighted score cross multiple criteria might help governance committees, especially if that's coupled with a "NO gold-plating" policy for non-discretionary/mandatory projects.
