The first risk management technique is avoidance of the risk all together. Avoidance of the risk comes about when the business declines to engage in all activities that are perceived to bear any form of risk. The best example is to forego purchasing a building for a location that cannot generate enough revenue that covers the costs of the building as this may increase the cost of production, which may in turn reduce the rate of profitability ( Kallman, 2003) . The other example of application of the risk avoidance as a technique of risk management is in the case of a hospital or a small medical practice that needs to avoid performance of certain procedures that are known to carry a higher degree of such a risk to the betterment of the health of the patient. Avoidance of a risk can better help in the management of the risk as it is a preventive measure of responding to the risky business ventures prior to certification.
Both forms of research describe risk mitigation as a form of action meant to solve the problem of existence of a risk after occurrence. I am in contention with this form of risk management technique. Mitigation of a risk is a major procedure that is meant to lessen the negativity of the consequences or the impacts of the risk. The process of risk mitigation helps to avoid further vulnerabilities or losses that come about as a result of the risk ( Chapman & Ward, 2003) . Risk mitigation works well in situations where the risk is unavoidable and may thus require a system of redress to reduce the consequences of such a risk. The best example where risk mitigation works in resolving the issue of risk management is where an automaker mitigates the risk that may occur in recalling a certain model through performance research and the detailed analysis of the viable costs for such a recall.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Risk mitigation calls for actions that work in response to the risk at hand. Risk mitigation is comparable to risk evasion that is practiced among most companies. In the case where an automaker has to make the potentiality of the costs of the recall, the process of risk mitigation may be applicable as a risk management technique as the losses incurred for a faulty vehicle may be less than the total costs that may be incurred for a recall. In the long run, the automaker may work in the acceptance of the faulty vehicle that may be of more value than the losses evident in the process of making a recall ( Kallman, 2003) . I totally agree with the process of mitigation of risks as it also responds to the problem of risk management. This is from the fact that software companies may work in mitigating risks for new programs that may not be functional through releasing such programs in product phases. These phases or stages of releasing programs help the company in determining the possible constraints in the whole marketing procedure.
The other risk management technique is the risk transfer. I agree with this model of responding to risks since in most incidences, businesses may make a choice of transferring a risk from one organization to the other. The most probable measure that is taken in the form of risk transfer is the insurance measure, where a company pays a premium to an insurance company, while in turn; the company gets some kind of protection from financial losses in the case of occurrence of a risk. For instance, insurance of property can be applied in the protection of a company for financial losses that are incurred when damage to any facility within the company happens ( Chapman & Ward, 2003) . I am in contention with the measure of transfer of a risk is as a risk management technique as it is both a curative and preventive technique of handling risks. On one hand, the measure of transfer of a risk is preventive as it covers the risk before it happens, while it may be curative as it covers the costs of goods lost due to the risk.
I am also in contention with the Kallman ideology of resolving risks by way of risk acceptance. Risk acceptance is a form of retaining the levels of risk that are brought about by specific projects especially if the anticipated profit that is generated from the business venture is far much greater than the potentiality of the cost of the risk ( Kallman, 2003) . Risk acceptance occurs when the company is critical aware of the presence of the risk, although the opportunity cost involving overcoming such a risk may be higher than the case of avoidance of the risk. If the overall profitability gained from the business can transcend over the total cost of the risk, acceptance of the risk is the best technique applicable in response for the probable risk.
This implies that the ideologies from research and that of Dr Kallman are in a sound correlation, where they both give evidence of how a company may act in response to the risks. In both stances, the researchers give practical examples of how the risk management technique is applicable in either eliminating the risk or containing it altogether ( Chapman & Ward, 2003) . Moreover, both forms of research give the basis for either elimination or rejection of the risk, where the major emphasis lies on the total cost of the risk versus the total cost of the profitability of the business venture. In the case where the cost of the risk is more than the total cost of the business, avoidance may work in response to the risk, while acceptance may only work when the profitability of the business venture is more than the total cost of the risk.
References
Kallman, J. (2003). Elimination of risk in systems: Practical principles for eliminating and reducing risk in complex systems. Journal of Risk and Insurance , 70 (4), 784-788.
Chapman, C., & Ward, S. (2003). Project risk management: processes, techniques and insights.
