Assumption and Contingency Planning
Risk is a phenomenon that refers to the uncertainties about the implications of human activities. Most of these risks entail the occurrence of undesirable outcomes. In the realm of business, risks are inevitable. There are three types of risks that most organizations face. These include business risks, non-business risks, and financial risks. These types of risks negatively impact the business operations if the correct rectifications are not put in place. Over the past few years, organizations, governments, and business entities have adopted various strategies to reduce risk. Although the risk management operations are put in place by organizations, governments, and business entities to minimize the occurrence of risks, there are instances that these strategies may fail. As such, assumptions and contingency planning are enacted to mitigate the risk events that have occurred and, in this case, to the Apple Company in 3D Holographic design.
Contingency planning is the systematic approach, or the steps taken by a firm in case of an identified business risk or an event occurs to 3D holographic design for Apple. Such is mostly done by an appointed by a contingency planning coordinator or a project manager. 3D Holographic design is the 3D projection displaying objects, animated sequences three-dimensionally, exists freely in space, and is visible to everyone without the need for 3D glasses. There are assumptions developed by the Apple Company when coming up with a business plan that will enable the firm to forecast the future uncertainties and the risks that may accrue to the 3D Holographic design. (Looker & Garvey, 2015). These assumptions are; only one disaster can occur at a time, resources required for recovery is available, assume your disaster recovery team, and the rest of the corporations survive the attack.
The first assumption that the Apple firm put in place is that only one disaster can occur at a time. However, multiple risks can coincide (Pickard et al., 2005). Therefore in as much as the firm makes assumptions concerning the occurrence of a single threat, several mitigation measures should be put in place in case of multiple unexpected events. The other assumption typically made by the firm assumes that the firm’s recovery resources are available. These resources include infrastructures such as transportation and distribution, labor, and telecommunications. The firm should not anticipate the smooth flow of the resources into the firm in the case of an event (Ramesh & Sarmah, 2020). The availability of resources usually is uncertain to the firm; hence the firm should not entirely rely on these assumptions that the resources will always be in place to recover the firm’s operations. The other assumption is that the recovery team and other personnel involved survive the disasters. There are cases where risks such as fires, attacks, and other calamities that put individuals’ lives at risk occur. As such, assumptions regarding survival rates are usually made.
In most cases, survival rates are not usually determined. This assumption is unreliable; hence the firm may lose the entire recovery personnel, such as distribution personnel. Besides, all the documents are lost during such calamities.
The firm usually considers other assumptions; some assume that they would obtain the suppliers’ necessary materials just in time. This assumption is, however, not reliable since some suppliers may lack enough inventory to gather for the needs of the organization (Pirttila et al. 2020). Besides, organizations also put the suppliers under unnecessary pressure as they look for the materials and spare parts required within a short period. Lastly, the firm may assume that the contingency plan should be developed within a short time to cater to short-term disasters such as logistical service failure. Such an assumption has led to business operations coming to a shut down when disasters strike due to poor risk management planning. Therefore, Apple Company should ensure that they plan and adopt the best recovery plan covering both short-term and long term business disasters. When such happens, all units in the firm are catered for.
Contingency planning processes are sequences of events that are usually undertaken by organizations and business entities. Such enables the continuation of the normal operations after the occurrence of an unexpected event. These normal operations may entail essential business functions, recovery of computer resources, networking procedures, and other facilities. For a contingency plan to operate effectively, four risk management components must be considered when designing a 3D holographic feature. These components are; risk identification, risk quantification, risk development, and risk response control.
Risk identification is a procedure that entails the determination of an expected occurrence that has the potential of preventing the firm from achieving its objectives. Risk identification involves documentation. Besides, communication is also encompassed so that the relevant authorities obtain the necessary information regarding areas of concern. According to Vijayakumar & Arun (2017), “risk assessment is a reactive process carried out either during the deployment process or during the evaluation of 3D Holographic design. Humans are involved in the risk assessment process, which is time-consuming, error-prone, and expensive. This causes the churning rate to find or alleviate risks in the future.” The risks identified may include increased designing costs and others. From the statement, it is evident that risk identification is fundamental for the alleviation of future threats.
Risk quantification is another component of contingency planning of 3D holographic design for Apple. As asserted by Velasquez-Gaviria, Mora-Valencia (2020), risk quantification entails evaluating the identified risks and developing data required for decision making. Risk quantification is always obtained using various formulas, including the multiplication of probability of the risk occurrence by the impacts of the risk. This concept is crucial since it enables the firm to evaluate and control systems as it provides the inferences of the extreme events that might occur to the 3D Holographic design (Dumont et al., 2017). Risk response development is another component that encompasses the steps undertaken to enhance the opportunities and responses to unexpected events. As mentioned by Sano (2016), in risk response development, the analysis of unforeseen 3D Holographic design occurrences is usually done independently based on the characteristics of the event involved.
Risk response control is the last procedure in contingency planning of the 3D Holographic design for Apple. As mentioned by Hwang et al. (2020), “risk response control is the process of keeping track of the identified risks, monitoring residual risks and identifying new risks, ensuring the execution of risk plans, and evaluating the plans’ effectiveness in reducing the 3D Holographic design risks. It is the process by which risks are kept at the forefront of management discussions and, therefore, reviewed periodically.” To execute all the 3D Holographic design plans effectively, the risk response control team should hold frequent meetings to review the existing projects. Besides, the team will incorporate all the procedures for the correct progression of the mitigation measures.
In conclusion, risks are inevitable events that generally happen in the realm of business. These risks cause undesirable consequences that alter the typical trajectory of business operations. The managerial team of apple firm has developed contingency plans for 3D Holographic designs to mitigate such unexpected events. Like most firms, they have developed assumptions. These assumptions enable the project risk management team to forecast the risk occurrence effectively and the possible recovery plans to be undertaken. Contingency planning entails four
Project risk management elements include risk identification, risk quantification, risk response development, and risk response control.
Dumont, K. A., Kvitting, J. P., Remme, E. W., Hausken, J., Skaarud Karlsen, J., Lundblad, R., … & Urheim, S. (2017). P3978Validation of a novel 3D holographic display for non-invasive quantificati Hwang, L., Ha, S., Gentet, P., Lee, J., Kwon, S., & Lee, S. (2020).
Hwang, L., Ha, S., Gentet, P., Lee, J., Kwon, S., & Lee, S. (2020). Verification of an Accommodative Response for Depth Measurement of Floating Hologram Using a Holographic Optical Element. Applied Sciences, 10(19), 6788.
Kaczmarzyk, J. (2019). Several sets of assumptions for the Monte Carlo simulation for a more precise analysis of enterprise risk. Econometrics, 23(4), 80-95.
Looker, J., & Garvey, T. (2015). REACHING FOR HOLOGRAMS: ASSESSING THE ERGONOMICS OF THE MICROSOFT™ HOLOLENS™ 3D GESTURE KNOWN AS THE “AIR TAP”. 아시아디지털아트앤디자인학회 학술대회 자료집, 82-89.
Pickard, K., Muller, P., & Bertsche, B. (2005, January). Multiple failure modes and effects analysis an approach to risk assessment of multiple failures with FMEA. In the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 2005. Proceedings. (pp. 457-462). IEEE.
Pirttilä, M., Virolainen, V. M., Lind, L., & Kärri, T. (2020). Working capital management in the Russian automotive industry supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 221, 107474.
Ramesh, K. T., & Sarmah, S. P. (2020). Impact of supply risk management on firm performance: a case of the Indian electronics industry. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
Sano, T. (2017). Holography: The Next Disruptive Technology. ARMY RESEARCH LAB