Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
Risk management is an essential factor in any institution due to the essence of establishing mitigating measures on operational guideline. It is the core responsibility of all relevant stakeholders to indicate distinctive perspectives enhancing sustainability on productivity and the safety of the liaisons. The army is an excellent example of an entity that aptly utilizes the risk management mainframe. However, researchers establish that despite the similarity of the application process, different organizations exploit dynamic perspectives on decision-making outliers due to the nature of the risk. Risk tolerance is a core distinguishing variable that adeptly affects the efficiency of outcomes from the resolutions established by the authorities.
Similarities of the DOA and Food Safety Risk Management
The implementation of effective measures enhancing the safety of the key participants in operations proficiently attributes to sustainable growth and development. Over the decades, different institutions across diverse sectors experienced challenges mainly on the emergent hazards. It is an issue that compromised the quality of output and the achievement of the core objective. In this case, sectoral entities focused on standardizing the parameters of risk management through a cyclic spectrum. In the analysis of the DOA framework, the continuity essence of risk management practice encapsulates identifying hazards, assessing, developing controls and making the relevant decisions, implementing, and supervising the initiatives (Department of Army, 2014). The Army and food agencies profoundly adhere to the procedure for competent outcomes.
A different similarity index of the Army and food agencies aspect on risk management is the coordinative efforts among all stakeholders. In the Army, the soldiers participate in the identification and assessment of the risks while the commander makes the risk decision (Department of Army, 2014). In this case, there is an adept recognition of hierarchy of authority to affirm accountability during the mechanism. Primarily, the food agencies utilize the same technique whereby employees develop fieldwork programs to investigate the divergent food handling aspects in various establishments (Food and Agricultural Organization, 2017). However, the workers submit the reports to the executive team that determines the best alternatives and the necessity of remedial parameters.
The categorization of risks is a factorial baseline that mainly depends on the interdependence of distinctive variables. The Army and the food agencies exploit similar foundational outlier on the principles of risk management (Department of Army, 2014). Ideally, the two entities appreciate the construct of the four dynamic frameworks. The components include integration of risk management in all operational phases, making risk decisions at variant levels, rejecting unnecessary risks, and applying cyclical and continuous spectrum on implementational guideline. The vital trait of the mainframe on threats mitigation lies in the ability of controlling the tolerance levels while ensuring the safety of all relevant stakeholders and the achievement of the key institutional goals.
Differences between the DOA and Food Safety Risk Management
There is a significant difference between the risk management practices conducted by the Army and the DOA. One of the key stipulations in the DOA mainframe encompasses the importance of involving the front-line soldiers in the identification and assessment of the distinctive threats (Department of Army, 2014). In this case, the department developed real-time and deliberate continuums attributing to the sensitivity of the condition. Therefore, there are two aspects warranting the commander’s indulgence in decision-making. The first approach entails determining the best alternative during war or incident with minimal risk. The second domain involves the exploitation of key details during planning for an effective execution of the scheme. However, there is a distinctive outline for the food agencies on account of enhancing the safety of consumers. In this case, the entity utilizes the critical essence of deliberations hence the institutionalization of policies and regulations for institutions to follow. As a result, the violation of the restrictions leads to intense disciplinary measure mainly encompassing the closure of the establishment.
While the Army utilizes risk management during off and on-duty activities, food agencies focus on maintaining a higher health index. Ideally, the core distinction lies in the scope of application. On the one hand, the Army’s framework involves enhancing security and the engagement among soldiers during missions (Department of Army, 2014). On the other hand, food agencies establish policies based on medical and community-based appeals. Despite both entities’ goal encompassing improving the well-being of the citizens, there is a core distinction outlier on perspective continuum. As a result, the Army exploits the domain on decision making through the ranks while the food agency members align their actions with the constitutional requirements on food safety and handling mechanisms.
In a different spectrum, there is a significant difference between the DOA and food safety regulatory provisions. According to the DOA, there is an allowance on handling certain risks across the dimensional framework (Department of Army, 2014). An excellent example is weighing the opportunity of intensifying performance through the incorporation of a divergent practice during training. On the contrary, food agency risk management framework accords no measure of threat due to the vulnerability of the human health. Therefore, the food agency intensely evaluates the dynamic effects of the mainframe while auditing the nominal practices compromising the well-being of the consumers mainly during the production and service process.
Risk Management Frameworks
Technological advancement played a key role towards the intensification of corporate competence on productivity and globalization of the entrepreneurial activities. In an effort to ensure business ethical practice, different governmental institutions incorporated dynamic certification programs indicating that the organizations adhere to the regulatory framework on particular issues (“ISO 31000”, 2020). An excellent example is the application for ISO 31000 approving the compliance to health and safety precautions. Accordingly, the Army’s focus on risk management framework involves amplifying the sustainable service delivery system on the core duties of security. However, the food agencies establish stringent parameters on its mainframe without an allowance for the threats due to the sensitivity of the practices. Individuals experience an apt vulnerability due to the consistent feeding habits thus elevating the exposure to dynamic complications from compromised food handling practices. In this case, all entities implement aspects attributing to the control of the imminent threats to the procedural outlines.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the uniformity on risk management practices is a necessity across all sectors due to the trickle-down effect of the accrued benefits. The exploration of the DOA and food safety frameworks optimally justifies the essence of risk tolerance on dynamic appeals. On the one hand, the Army establishes allowances on risk alternatives. On the other hand, the food agency incorporates strict measures contributing to the elevation of effective handling and processing of foods. Primarily, the different institutions’ core objective involves promoting optimal well-being among individuals in the region based on security and health index. In this case, there is a significant effect of certification programs, such as ISO 31000 that affirm the quality of the commodities. It is the vital mandate of all relevant stakeholders to incorporate attributes that promote sustainable growth and development despite the competency-based domain.
References
Department of Army. (2014). Risk management. Army Knowledge Online. Web.
Food and Agricultural Organization. (2017). Food safety risk management: Evidence-informed policies and decisions, considering multiple factors. FAO.
ISO 31000 – risk management. ISO. (2020). Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.