Do you really want a single source of truth?

Not taking everything at face value is a critical skill

Sounds exactly what we all need right? But wait ... when you dive deeper into that statement is that really a good situation for an organisation to be in? Who decides on what truth is ... ok we might be getting overly philosophical with that statement, but hopefully you see why that concept of truth is so open to abuse and ambiguity. However, I see this statement used way too often when describing risk technologies and it is incredibly misleading.

I see this and so many similar statements in risk technology platforms, saying 'single source of truth', 'real time intelligence through AI' or 'a single pane of glass' etc. If that were all true, managing and mitigating risk sounds really simple ... right? Well no, when you never really have 100% certainty or a complete single perspective of risk, how is technology supposed to articulate that for you on your behalf. What are all the different potential outcomes and impacts? This is really important when you go to you risk management solutions to dig deeper into the data it gives you, have some scepticism in how it draws conclusions etc. I worry more for organisations that are either too small or do not emphasise (or budget for) risk expertise that knows how to interpret what they are being told.

We are starting to see the risk of simulation (and micro-simulation) solutions that allow you to try out those 'what ifs' either through automation and/or through team interaction and see how events 'could' play out. These are already (or should be) a vital part of your risk toolkit, so that you are not totally relying on your tech's single opinion (and especially AI) to do all the footwork for you. If you do ... well more fool you ... a good risk solution would have warned you not to completely rely on what you are told :-)