Is ISO 31000 fit for purpose?

The debate

Is ISO 31000 fit for purpose is the headline above a debate published in the June edition of Risk Management Professional for online version click here. The debate consisted of an abbreviated version of my blog ISO 31 000: Dr Rorschach meets Humpty Dumpty -­ and a rebuttal by Grant Purdy, one of the principal authors of the ISO Standard.

Debate and rebuttal have been enclosed in quotation marks because a serious debate did not take place. The rebuttal is entitled Never perfect, but inclusionary, practical and widely accepted, and consists mostly of an explanation of (and excuse for) any imperfections that it might have.

It observes that:

  • standards may not reflect the ‘best available’ practices and leadingthinking.
  • a standard can be biased because of prevailing influences in the committeethat prepared it.
  • significant compromises are often required to obtain consensus in acommittee. and concedes that

¢ it would be naïve to think that ISO 31000 could not suffer from any of the problems described above.

The rebuttal further acknowledges some fudging and some unnecessary complexity. None of these admissions of possible imperfection are related to any specific parts of ISO 31000; readers are left to work out for themselves where within the document they might be found.

Is it fit?

But lets move on to the purpose of ISO 31000. … read the full essay here