What is *The Failure of Risk Management* by Douglas W. Hubbard about?

*The Failure of Risk Management* critiques traditional risk-assessment methods like risk matrices and expert intuition, arguing they lack scientific rigor. Hubbard advocates for quantitative approaches, such as calibrated probability estimates, Monte Carlo simulations, and Applied Information Economics, to measure and mitigate risks objectively. The book emphasizes testing models against real-world data and building dedicated risk-management teams to address systemic failures.

Who should read *The Failure of Risk Management*?

Risk managers, corporate decision-makers, and professionals in finance, project management, or cybersecurity will benefit most. The book is ideal for skeptics of qualitative risk frameworks and those seeking data-driven methods to quantify uncertainties. Hubbard’s insights also appeal to academics studying actuarial science or decision theory.

Is *The Failure of Risk Management* worth reading?

Yes, particularly for its rigorous critique of outdated methods and actionable solutions like probabilistic modeling. While some sections are technical, Hubbard balances theory with real-world examples (e.g., the 2008 financial crisis). Critics note occasional repetition, but the book remains a seminal guide for modernizing risk practices.

What are the main ideas in *The Failure of Risk Management*?

* **Flawed methods**: Risk matrices and expert intuition often amplify biases. * **Quantitative fixes**: Use probability calibration, Monte Carlo simulations, and empirical validation. * **The Risk Paradox**: Major risks receive less analysis than minor ones. * **Collaboration**: Cross-industry data sharing improves risk models.

How does Douglas W. Hubbard define "calibration" in risk management?

Calibration involves training experts to make accurate probability estimates through feedback and tests like the "equivalent bet" method. Hubbard argues this reduces overconfidence and aligns subjective judgments with measurable outcomes, a process detailed in his "premortem" analysis technique.

What is the "Risk Paradox" in *The Failure of Risk Management*?

Hubbard’s Risk Paradox highlights how organizations often apply sophisticated analysis to low-stakes operational risks while using superficial methods (or none) for existential threats. This mismatch exacerbates systemic vulnerabilities, as seen in corporate collapses and engineering disasters.

How does *The Failure of Risk Management* critique traditional risk matrices?

Hubbard calls risk matrices “no better than astrology” due to their arbitrary scoring scales, inconsistent categorization, and inability to quantify probabilities. He demonstrates how they create false precision, overlook correlations between risks, and fail empirical validation.

What is Applied Information Economics (AIE) in the book?

AIE is Hubbard’s methodology to quantify uncertainties using Bayesian statistics, decision trees, and value-of-information analysis. It prioritizes measuring key variables to reduce decision-making uncertainty, exemplified in case studies from oil exploration to cybersecurity.

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約

なぜ壊れているのか、そしてそれをどう修正するか

ダグラス・W・ハバード

3.95(405 Reviews)

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約の概要

『リスク管理の失敗（The Failure of Risk Management）』は、なぜ従来の手法が通用しないのかを暴き、データに基づいた代替案を提示しています。ハバードによるリスク・マトリックスや認知バイアスへの批判は、企業の不確実性へのアプローチに革命をもたらしました。驚くべきことに、多くの「専門家」によるリスク評価は、ランダムな偶然よりも低い精度しか示していません。

語り方を選ぶ

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約をさまざまな学習スタイルで探る

リスクマネジメントの敗北の同じアイデアを、あなたに合う声・深さ・ペースで学べます。いつでも切り替えられます。

第1章

When Risk Management Becomes the Risk: The Hidden Dangers of Flawed Methods

Risk management seems straightforward: identify threats, assess their likelihood and impact, then take appropriate action. Yet as Douglas Hubbard reveals in "The Failure of Risk Management," this critical business function is often built on fundamentally flawed foundations. Since its publication, this groundbreaking work has become required reading at major corporations and business schools worldwide. Warren Buffett reportedly keeps a copy on his desk, while tech leaders like Elon Musk have cited it when discussing Tesla's approach to risk. The book's cultural impact extends beyond business-it fundamentally changed how organizations from NASA to the Department of Defense approach uncertainty. What makes this work so powerful is Hubbard's unflinching examination of why the most popular risk management methods are not just ineffective but potentially dangerous, offering a mathematically sound alternative that has since transformed how forward-thinking organizations handle risk.

第2章

The Crisis in Risk Management: Why Most Methods Don't Work

The 2008 financial crisis exposed catastrophic failures in risk management across industries, serving as a stark wake-up call about the inadequacy of existing approaches. Despite sophisticated systems, complex models, and armies of dedicated professionals, organizations consistently fail to anticipate and prepare for major threats. Hubbard argues this isn't due to the inherent unpredictability of disasters but rather stems from fundamental flaws in how we assess and manage risk. Most organizations rely heavily on qualitative approaches - particularly risk matrices with high/medium/low ratings or weighted scoring systems - that create what Hubbard terms an "analysis placebo effect." These methods feel rigorous and scientific but lack empirical validation. They spread virally through organizations, becoming entrenched as "best practices" or even codified into regulations and standards. The comfort they provide is illusory, masking deeper vulnerabilities while creating a false sense of security. The consequences of these flawed approaches manifest in devastating ways. When Boeing's 737 MAX 8 was introduced, two crashes killed 339 people within months. The investigation revealed what engineers call a "common mode failure" - multiple safety systems compromised by a single point of failure. In this case, faulty sensor data led to catastrophic system responses. Similarly, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the Fukushima nuclear disaster demonstrated how risk management itself can become a common mode failure, introducing systematic blindness across entire organizations through shared but flawed assessment methods. What makes this crisis particularly dangerous is the widespread lack of performance measurement in risk management. Unlike other business functions such as marketing, operations, or finance, risk management effectiveness is rarely evaluated objectively. In a comprehensive survey of organizations claiming to be "extremely" or "very" effective at risk management, 69% admitted they made no attempt to measure whether their methods actually worked. Of those who claimed to measure effectiveness, 63% relied solely on subjective staff surveys rather than concrete outcomes or empirical data. Without objective measurement and validation, organizations operate in a dangerous vacuum, unable to distinguish between effective risk management and the mere illusion of security. This problem is compounded by cognitive biases that lead people to overestimate their ability to predict and control risks. As Frederick Smith, FedEx's CEO, noted: "Leaders get out in front and stay there by raising the standards by which they judge themselves-and by which they are willing to be judged." By this standard, most risk management programs are flying blind, relying on methods that provide comfort rather than genuine protection. The proliferation of standardized risk management frameworks like ISO 31000 and COSO ERM, while well-intentioned, may actually exacerbate the problem by legitimizing unproven methods and creating a false sense of rigor. Organizations need to fundamentally rethink their approach to risk assessment, moving beyond subjective ratings and matrices to embrace quantitative methods and empirical validation.

聴きながら、すべての言葉を目で追えます

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約の一語一語が音声に合わせてリアルタイムでハイライトされ、自然に読み進められます。

第3章

The Tower of Babel: How Confusion About Risk Creates Vulnerability

Before solving risk management's problems, we must first understand what "risk" actually means. Surprisingly, different fields define this fundamental concept in contradictory ways, creating what Hubbard calls an "Ivory Tower of Babel" where practitioners speak past each other, leading to miscommunication and potentially costly mistakes in risk assessment. Economist Frank Knight's influential 1921 definition distinguished "risk" (measurable uncertainty) from "uncertainty" (unmeasurable). This contradicts both common usage and established practice across multiple disciplines. Knight's definition omits the critical element of potential loss that most fields consider essential to risk. For example, while we can measure the probability of rolling specific numbers on dice, we wouldn't call this a "risk" unless something valuable was at stake. In project management, organizations like PMI define risk as "an uncertain event that has positive or negative effects on objectives." This contradicts every English dictionary definition, which all define risk in terms of peril, danger, or harm. As Hubbard explains to project managers: "There's already a word for all possible outcomes-uncertainty." This confusion often leads project teams to waste time documenting "positive risks" instead of focusing on genuine threats to project success. Finance often equates risk with volatility or variance. But this definition is problematic for several reasons. First, volatility only creates risk when you have a stake in the outcome - market fluctuations don't matter if you're not invested. Second, volatility doesn't necessarily mean risk-if all possible outcomes are positive, there's uncertainty but no risk. For instance, uncertainty about whether a company's profits will be "high" or "very high" represents volatility but not risk. These competing definitions create practical problems in real-world situations. When a team conducts a risk assessment, members may be speaking entirely different languages without realizing it. One manager defined "very likely" as just 20% probability-shocking his colleague who considered "very likely" to mean at least 80%. When questioned, he explained, "Well, this is a very high impact event and 20 percent is too likely for that kind of impact." This miscommunication could have led to severely underestimating project risks. Hubbard proposes a clear lexicon to resolve these issues: Risk must include some probability of loss, involve only losses (not gains), and can include both discrete events and continuous ranges with associated probabilities. Risk tolerance should be mathematically explicit-either as a maximum bearable risk curve or a function converting uncertain outcomes to fixed dollar amounts. For example, a company might specify that it can tolerate a 10% chance of losing $1 million, but only a 1% chance of losing $10 million. This clarity is essential because risk management must be a subset of decision analysis. Decisions require consideration of potential benefits alongside risks, making precise terminology the foundation of effective risk management. Organizations that fail to establish clear definitions often find themselves making inconsistent decisions or focusing on the wrong threats entirely. For instance, a healthcare organization might overemphasize rare but dramatic risks while underestimating more common but less visible threats to patient safety. The solution lies in establishing standardized risk definitions within organizations and ensuring all stakeholders understand and use these definitions consistently. This includes creating clear scales for probability and impact assessment, and explicitly defining terms like "high risk" and "risk appetite" in quantifiable terms.

第4章

The Limits of Expert Judgment: Why We're Overconfident About Uncertainty

Our reliance on expert judgment for risk assessment requires understanding the limitations of human expertise. While we can't avoid using subjective judgment, we need objective assessments of these subjective estimates-we need to "calibrate" our experts just as we would calibrate any measuring instrument. Research by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky-work so influential that Kahneman became the first psychologist to win the Nobel Prize in Economics-reveals how the human mind deals with uncertainty through heuristics (mental shortcuts) and biases that operate below our awareness. The representativeness bias leads us to judge odds based on what seems representative rather than actual probabilities. We confuse patterns and randomness, as shown during WWII when Londoners mistakenly perceived bombing patterns as non-random when the distribution matched what random bombing would produce. Perhaps most dangerous is what Kahneman calls "catastrophic" overconfidence. When people state the probability that their predictions will come true, they systematically overestimate their accuracy. Studies consistently show that when uncalibrated people claim 90% confidence in their answers, they're correct only about 66% of the time. This overconfidence extends to range estimates. When asked to provide 90% confidence intervals (ranges so wide that the actual answer should fall within them 90% of the time), most people create ranges so narrow that they capture the true answer only 30-60% of the time. The consequences can be severe. Richard Feynman, investigating the Challenger disaster, found management estimated the probability of failure at an astonishingly optimistic 1 in 100,000, while engineers estimated 1 in 100-a thousand-fold difference. Even successful executives may be overconfident due to luck rather than skill. Given the large number of candidates competing for few upper-management positions, some will have strings of successes purely by chance-like winners of a coin-flipping tournament-yet attribute their success to special insight rather than luck. Our judgments are also remarkably inconsistent. In IT project risk assessments, experts gave wildly different probability estimates when unknowingly evaluating identical projects twice in the same session. Only 22% gave the same answer both times, with differences often exceeding 10 percentage points. The good news is that calibration training significantly improves people's ability to assess odds accurately. Yet most risk assessment methods make no attempt to address these fundamental issues of human judgment.

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約をもっと深く楽しむ

毎日の新しい気づきを10万件以上のレッスンから
言葉をハイライトして音声と同期
ライブラリを保存して、どの端末からでも利用

第5章

Worse Than Useless: The Fatal Flaws in Risk Matrices

The most popular risk assessment method-the risk matrix-may be doing more harm than good. These simple visual tools display risk along two dimensions (likelihood and impact) using verbal labels or numerical scales (usually 1-5). The resulting matrix is often divided into zones classifying total risk as high-medium-low or red-yellow-green. Despite their popularity, research shows these methods often make decisions worse than they would have been without any analysis at all. Tony Cox, one of the earliest PhDs in risk management from MIT, has identified five major problems with these methods: First is range compression-scoring methods lump together vastly different values under single categories. For example, the NIST scale would categorize both a 1% and an 18% likelihood as "low," and risks with dramatically different impacts (like $100 million vs. $250 million losses) receive identical ratings. Second, most scoring systems assume regular intervals between scale points (1-2-3-4-5), which rarely reflect true relative magnitudes. In one federal agency, their IT project risk scale assigned a C-level executive sponsor three times the value of a VP sponsor, but historical data showed the actual difference was only about 30%. Third, qualitative methods universally ignore correlations between risks. Two "medium" risks that could occur simultaneously due to the same cause represent a much higher combined risk than the matrix suggests. Fourth, research shows responses on five-point scales cluster heavily-about 80% of responses fall on just 3 or 4 points, meaning small arbitrary changes can dramatically alter risk rankings. Fifth, seemingly minor differences in scale design (like using 0-3 versus 1-4) can significantly change how risks are prioritized. When using verbal scales like "very likely," "likely," "unlikely," and "very unlikely," people interpret these terms vastly differently. Research by David Budescu found that even when specific probability guidelines were provided (e.g., "likely" means "greater than 66%"), respondents' interpretations varied wildly-"likely" was interpreted to mean anything from 45% to 84%. This creates what Budescu calls an "illusion of communication"-when everyone "agrees" that an event is "very unlikely," they aren't actually agreeing at all, as their interpretations differ dramatically. After extensive analysis, Cox concludes risk matrices can mistakenly assign higher ratings to quantitatively smaller risks and lead to worse-than-random decisions. Thomas, Bratvold, and Bickel's comprehensive review of thirty risk matrices in the oil and gas industry found most distorted risks by a factor of at least ten. They recommended the industry rely instead on "risk- and decision-analytic procedures that rest on more than 250 years of scientific development and understanding."

第6章

Obstacles to Better Risk Management: Bears, Swans, and Mathematical Misconceptions

Even if we accept the flaws in current methods, significant conceptual obstacles to improved risk management remain. Many perceive risk as immeasurable and any attempt to manage it as infeasible. Hubbard argues that measurement is simply a quantitatively-expressed reduction in uncertainty based on observation-not perfect clairvoyance but an improvement on unaided intuition. People often commit what Hubbard calls the "exsupero ursus" fallacy (Latin for "beat the bear"), illustrated by the joke about two hikers-one wearing running shoes to outrun bears. When the other points out you can't outrun bears, the first replies, "I don't have to outrun the bear, just you." This fallacy appears when evaluating models-rejecting a better option because it fails to meet an impossible standard. Berkeley Dietvorst's research shows people exhibit "algorithm aversion"-they're less forgiving of algorithmic errors than human ones, even when algorithms perform better. Philip Tetlock's massive 20-year study tracking 284 experts making 82,000 forecasts about elections, wars, and economics delivered a powerful conclusion: "It is impossible to find any domain in which humans clearly outperformed crude extrapolation algorithms, less still sophisticated statistical ones." Despite this evidence, many still prefer human judgment over algorithms. Critics point to single failures like 9/11 or market crashes as "proof" algorithms don't work, ignoring that a single error doesn't prove one model is worse than another. Other common fallacious arguments include "garbage in, garbage out," "each situation is unique," "we lack data," or "this is too complex to model"-all failing to acknowledge that human intuition faces identical limitations. The greatest resistance to quantitative methods comes from those who hold misconceptions they believe are correct. One fundamental misconception is the belief that we must know "exact probabilities" to use quantitative methods. This misunderstands that probabilities exist precisely because we are uncertain. Many managers claim their environments are uniquely complex and that quantitative methods won't work for them, despite these methods being successfully applied across diverse fields from nuclear power to software development. Even actuaries frequently work with limited data, especially when assessing their greatest exposures. Insurance companies regularly insure rare events with minimal historical data, including Olympic cancellation insurance, rocket launch insurance, and credit risk insurance in developing nations.

聴きながら、すべての言葉を目で追えます

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約の一語一語が音声に合わせてリアルタイムでハイライトされ、自然に読み進められます。

第7章

A Simple Solution: The One-for-One Substitution Model

To bridge the gap between qualitative and quantitative risk methods, Hubbard introduces a simple quantitative model that can serve as a starting point. The "one-for-one substitution model" offers the simplest probabilistic alternative to a risk matrix, serving as a direct replacement that still captures subjective estimates of likelihood and impact, but in probabilistic terms. Instead of using qualitative scales like high/medium/low for risk assessment, we substitute actual probabilities and monetary values. For each risk on a conventional matrix, we create a row in a spreadsheet where we define the risk, specify a time period, assign a probability of occurrence within that period, and estimate a 90% confidence interval for monetary loss if the event occurs. The same subject matter experts who populate conventional risk matrices can provide these quantitative estimates. They now express their uncertainty using probabilities and ranges instead of vague scales. When working with ranges of uncertain values rather than exact numbers, we need probabilistic modeling methods like Monte Carlo simulation to combine them meaningfully. This approach generates thousands of random scenarios based on our probability inputs, allowing us to answer questions like "What's the chance we'll lose more than $X next year?" The results can be visualized as a Loss Exceedance Curve (LEC), which shows the probability of exceeding various loss thresholds-a mathematically unambiguous way to visualize risk already used in financial, actuarial, and engineering fields. To determine how much risk we can bear, we use a "risk tolerance curve" to compare against the Loss Exceedance Curve. If our LEC stays under this curve, the risk is acceptable. This curve is best gathered from management in about a 90-minute meeting, asking them to establish points like "Would you accept a 10% chance per year of losing more than $5 million?" The ultimate purpose of risk analysis is to support decisions, but traditional risk matrices make specific resource allocation difficult. Organizations need a "return on control" calculation: the monetized value of reduced expected losses divided by the control cost. Even this simple quantitative model improves risk assessment by avoiding qualitative ambiguity, decomposing uncertain quantities, and using Monte Carlo simulations. How much detail you add depends on your risks' size and criticality.

第8章

Building a Risk-Intelligent Organization: From Models to Culture

While improving risk assessment methods is crucial, organizational implementation requires breaking down silos, establishing quality procedures, and incentivizing good analysis. Risk management improvement demands commitment beyond superficial measures like appointing risk czars. Organizations need someone responsible for assessing all uncertainties across departments-whether called a Chief Risk Officer, Chief Decision Analysis Officer, or Chief Probability Officer. This person should define roles and documentation, determine training requirements (including calibration training for estimators), manage model development across the organization, and track forecast performance. Creating an organization-wide risk model that crosses departmental silos may seem daunting but can begin either with seed models that gradually expand or with a top-down design approach. The Global Probability Model (GPM) serves as a central repository for all uncertainty analysis in the organization, allowing different departments to use consistent models for shared variables like revenue forecasts or economic indicators. A calibrated culture requires more than just training estimators-it demands tracking predictions, reporting results, and incentivizing accurate forecasting. The Brier score provides an objective method for evaluating forecasters based on both accuracy and confidence. This scoring system rewards forecasters who are both accurate and appropriately confident, while penalizing overconfidence when wrong. The most critical issue for creating a calibrated culture is aligning incentives with better risk management. Management bonuses should consider risk exposure, not just profits. Risk experts like Andrew Freeman of McKinsey identify improper incentives as a major culprit in the 2008 financial crisis, where bonuses were paid without regard to increased risk exposure and never reclaimed after catastrophes occurred. Some critical risk management issues require solutions beyond individual firms, involving standards organizations, professional associations, and legal changes. Unlike actuaries, who have legally recognized professional status with standardized testing and ethical codes, other risk modeling professionals lack similar standards. Standards organizations like PMI and NIST currently promote ineffective risk methods and should involve quantitative decision analysts in developing better standards. Organizations should evolve toward constantly tested models that support both risk management and broader decision-making, managed by specialists with high organizational visibility. Ideally, these models and their data sources should be shared across firms and industries to reduce systemic risk.

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約をもっと深く楽しむ

毎日の新しい気づきを10万件以上のレッスンから
言葉をハイライトして音声と同期
ライブラリを保存して、どの端末からでも利用

第9章

The Path Forward: Embracing Quantitative Risk Management

Hubbard's central message is that quantitative methods, even with subjective components, consistently outperform intuition, ordinal scales, and risk matrices. The solution to risk management's failures isn't abandoning structure but embracing more rigorous approaches grounded in probability theory and decision science. This becomes particularly evident when organizations face complex, interconnected risks that defy simple categorization. To implement better risk management: 1. Speak the language of probabilities-what Sam Savage calls "the arithmetic of uncertainty." This means using actual probabilities to represent uncertainty and performing proper calculations to avoid common intuitive errors. For example, instead of labeling a risk as "high likelihood," specify "70% chance of occurrence within 12 months." This precision enables meaningful comparison and aggregation of risks across different domains. 2. Get your probabilities calibrated. Calibration training not only improves experts' probability assessments but builds their intuitive understanding of probabilistic models. The key to calibration is repetition and feedback through structured testing, comparing expected results to actual outcomes. Research shows that experts who undergo formal calibration training can improve their accuracy by 25-30% within just a few months of practice. 3. Use data for initial benchmarks. Even with calibration training, experts benefit from data-based benchmarks for their estimates. Hubbard proposes three working assumptions: it's been measured before, you have more data than you think, and you need less data than you think. Organizations often overlook valuable data sources like industry reports, historical records, and analogous situations in other sectors. Even small samples can provide meaningful insights - sometimes as few as 12 data points can establish a useful baseline. 4. Break it down, then do the math. When estimates are extremely uncertain, decomposing the problem into quantities that are easier to estimate makes sense. Studies by MacGregor and Armstrong found that for highly uncertain variables, simple decomposition into no more than five variables could reduce error by an astonishing 96.3 percent. For instance, instead of estimating total project risk, break it down into schedule risk, resource risk, technical risk, and stakeholder risk components. 5. Apply a filter. Not everything should be classified as a risk. Good filtering rules include: risks typically don't happen every year (usually less than 50% annual probability); impacts should be large enough to report to top management (typically affecting 1% or more of annual revenue); be careful about including missed opportunities like failing to reach sales goals; avoid listing management decisions as risks; and watch for overlapping risks that might double-count impacts. This filtering process helps focus attention on truly significant risks rather than routine operational variations. As Laplace noted two centuries ago, probability theory-which began with games of chance-has become "the most important object of human knowledge," essential for making decisions under uncertainty where potential losses are significant. Modern applications have proven this across fields from insurance to investment banking, where quantitative risk management has become standard practice. By embracing this powerful mathematical framework, organizations can transform risk management from a compliance exercise into a genuine strategic advantage, enabling better resource allocation and more confident decision-making under uncertainty. The transition to quantitative risk management requires investment in training, tools, and cultural change, but organizations that make this shift typically see improvements in decision quality within 12-18 months. Success stories range from major infrastructure projects reducing cost overruns by 40% to pharmaceutical companies better predicting clinical trial outcomes.

★★★★★

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約を最後まで読み終えました

“23日間、毎日使い続けています。今では日課の一部です。”

jayallen

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約の主要テーマ

quantitative risk analysis
decision science
probabilistic modeling
analysis placebo effect
empirical validation

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約の名言集

Risk management itself can become a common mode failure.
Leaders get out in front by raising the standards by which they judge themselves.
There's already a word for all possible outcomes-uncertainty.
Risk must include some probability of loss.
Risk management must be a subset of decision analysis.

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約の登場人物

Douglas W. HubbardAuthor and expert on risk management methods
Frederick SmithCEO of FedEx quoted on leadership standards
Frank KnightEconomist who defined risk and uncertainty

著者について

『The Failure of Risk Management: Why It’s Broken and How to Fix It（リスクマネジメントの失敗：なぜ機能しないのか、どう修正すべきか）』のベストセラー著者であるダグラス・W・ハバードは、先駆的な経営コンサルタントであり、ハバード・デシジョン・リサーチの創設者です。意思決定科学と保険数理的リスク分析のリーダーであるハバードは、ベイズ分析やモンテカルロ・シミュレーションなどの定量的手法を統合し、時代遅れのリスク管理慣行を抜本的に見直す「応用情報経済学（AIE）」フレームワークを開発しました。彼の著作は、リスクマトリックスのような非定量的なツールへの依存を批判し、代わりにサイバーセキュリティから金融まで幅広い業界で検証された、確率論的かつデータ駆動型の戦略を提唱しています。

ハバードの専門性は、フォーチュン10企業、政府機関、軍事組織に対する30年にわたるコンサルティング経験に基づいています。彼はまた、保険数理試験や大学のカリキュラムで必須とされ、世界的なベストセラーとなった影響力のある著書『How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business（仕事の「価値」をどう測定するか）』の著者でもあります。

彼の著書は8か国語に翻訳され、世界中で13万部以上を売り上げています。2017年のパロアルトネットワークス・サイバーセキュリティ・キャノン賞を受賞し、王立芸術協会（RSA）のフェローにも選出されたハバードの手法は、測定可能でエビデンスに基づいた解決策を求める企業のリスク管理プロトコルを形作っています。

リスクマネジメントの敗北の要約をダウンロード

リスクマネジメントの敗北の要約をPDFまたはEPUBで無料でダウンロード。印刷やオフラインでいつでもお読みいただけます。

他のユーザーのお気に入り

Strategic Risk Management

Campbell R. Harvey & Sandy Rattray & Otto Van Hemert

Risk Intelligence

Dylan Evans

How to Measure Anything

Douglas W. Hubbard

Ten Commandments for Business Failure

Donald R. Keough

When Genius Failed

Roger Lowenstein

You Are What You Risk

Michele Wucker

Risk Savvy

Gerd Gigerenzer

Risk

Dan Gardner

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約についてのよくある質問

この学習プランの一部

学習プラン

The Management Shadow: Taleb/Kahneman/Greene

In an era of radical uncertainty, traditional management frameworks often fail because they ignore human irrationality and the impact of rare events. This plan is designed for leaders and strategists who want to master the hidden psychological and systemic forces that govern success and power.

4 h 43 m•4 セクション

学習プラン

Learn The Misbehavior of Markets tenets

Modern finance often relies on outdated models that ignore the reality of extreme market events. This plan is essential for investors and analysts who want to move beyond standard deviations to understand the true nature of risk and fractal patterns in financial systems.

3 h 21 m•4 セクション

学習プラン

Think like Nassim taleb

In an increasingly volatile world, traditional linear thinking often leads to catastrophic failure. This plan is essential for decision-makers, investors, and strategists who want to move beyond mere resilience and learn to profit from uncertainty.

5 h 30 m•4 セクション

学習プラン

Master Probability in Life, Work & Business

In an increasingly unpredictable world, the ability to quantify risk and think statistically is a critical competitive advantage. This plan is designed for professionals and decision-makers who want to replace guesswork with data-driven confidence and sharper mental models.

5 h 2 m•4 セクション

学習プラン

Mauboussin & Taleb: Probabilistic Decisions

This learning plan bridges the gap between theoretical randomness and practical decision science for professionals in finance, strategy, and leadership. By synthesizing the wisdom of Mauboussin and Taleb, it provides a robust toolkit for anyone needing to make high-stakes choices in an unpredictable world.

5 h 25 m•4 セクション

学習プラン

Plan Hazard Risk & Implementation Design

In an increasingly volatile world, the ability to anticipate and mitigate catastrophic system failures is a critical leadership skill. This plan is designed for project managers, safety officers, and operational leaders who need to transition from basic hazard identification to building truly resilient, antifragile organizations.

6 h 3 m•4 セクション

学習プラン

Risk Arbitrage

Risk arbitrage is a sophisticated investment strategy that allows traders to profit from corporate events and market inefficiencies surrounding M&A activity. This learning plan is ideal for finance professionals, aspiring hedge fund analysts, and active investors seeking to understand how institutional players generate returns from deal-making and special situations while managing downside risk.

5 h 12 m•4 セクション

学習プラン

Master thinking in distributions

In an increasingly complex world, the ability to quantify uncertainty is a superpower for leaders and analysts. This plan bridges the gap between raw statistics and practical decision-making for anyone looking to master risk.

5 h 42 m•4 セクション

コロンビア大学卒業生が開発 | サンフランシスコ発

BeFreedは好奇心旺盛な仲間が集うグローバルコミュニティ

4.7

平均評価

7,840件以上のアプリ評価

BeFreedコミュニティ

正直、まだアプリを使いこなせていませんが、この数日使っただけで本当に感動しました… BeFreed は、今まで使ったどの学習アプリともレベルが違います。夢中になれるうえに集中力も実際に上がるので、スマホをだらだら見てしまう人にぴったりです！

@ladyInfinity

ちょうど 23 日前に BeFreed を購入して、それから毎日欠かさず使っています。仕事の流れと学習習慣に完全に溶け込みました。

@jayallen

正直なところ、このアプリは期待をすべて超えてきました。どんなテーマでも音声を生成してもらえて、その結果には驚かされます。私の専門は心理療法で、多分野にまたがる領域ですが、それでも回答はとても正確です。

@Raguipa

何よりありがたいのは、スマホをだらだら見る時間が減ったことです。探す時間が減って、吸収する時間が増えました。オーディオブック、ポッドキャスト、学習プランの組み合わせが素晴らしいです。

@colonyofcreatorsNGO

私は 24 年間、PhotoReading 加速学習のインストラクターをしています… 本と読書と学びが私の専門ですが、BeFreed は情報を消化しやすい形で届ける革新的なアプローチを見事に実現しています。

@BeFreed user

ただの本の要約アプリではありません。「ファン」スタイルを使ってみたら、従来のやり方よりずっと良い要約で、アイデアもつかみやすいです。これだけでも十分元が取れます。

@austinakon

このアプリが大好きです。数日使っただけで、聞くのが止まらなくなりました。始め方として最高です。

@jcrules328

本当に気に入っています。約 1 か月試していますが、まさに掘り出し物だと感じます。BeFreed で自分だけのテーマを作れるのが便利で、声も素晴らしく、ナレーションの選択肢は無限です。

@DanielCZ

正直、まだアプリを使いこなせていませんが、この数日使っただけで本当に感動しました… BeFreed は、今まで使ったどの学習アプリともレベルが違います。夢中になれるうえに集中力も実際に上がるので、スマホをだらだら見てしまう人にぴったりです！

@ladyInfinity

ちょうど 23 日前に BeFreed を購入して、それから毎日欠かさず使っています。仕事の流れと学習習慣に完全に溶け込みました。

@jayallen

正直なところ、このアプリは期待をすべて超えてきました。どんなテーマでも音声を生成してもらえて、その結果には驚かされます。私の専門は心理療法で、多分野にまたがる領域ですが、それでも回答はとても正確です。

@Raguipa

何よりありがたいのは、スマホをだらだら見る時間が減ったことです。探す時間が減って、吸収する時間が増えました。オーディオブック、ポッドキャスト、学習プランの組み合わせが素晴らしいです。

@colonyofcreatorsNGO

私は 24 年間、PhotoReading 加速学習のインストラクターをしています… 本と読書と学びが私の専門ですが、BeFreed は情報を消化しやすい形で届ける革新的なアプローチを見事に実現しています。

@BeFreed user

ただの本の要約アプリではありません。「ファン」スタイルを使ってみたら、従来のやり方よりずっと良い要約で、アイデアもつかみやすいです。これだけでも十分元が取れます。

@austinakon

このアプリが大好きです。数日使っただけで、聞くのが止まらなくなりました。始め方として最高です。

@jcrules328

本当に気に入っています。約 1 か月試していますが、まさに掘り出し物だと感じます。BeFreed で自分だけのテーマを作れるのが便利で、声も素晴らしく、ナレーションの選択肢は無限です。

@DanielCZ

役立つ情報やアイデアを 8〜15 分のポッドキャスト風音声にぎゅっとまとめて聞けるのが最高です。ポッドキャストは余計な話が多くて苦手でしたが、これは無駄を全部そぎ落としてくれます。

@BeFreed user

博士課程の仕上げの段階で、なじみのない資料を大量に読む必要があります… BeFreed ならプロンプトを入力するだけで、アプリが資料を探して音声ポッドキャストを作ってくれます。BeFreed のほうが NotebookLM よりも流れがスムーズだと感じます。

@Brad

朝食を作りながら、散歩しながら、通勤しながら聞くものを YouTube でよく探していましたが、BeFreed は広告も余計な話もなしで、もっと的を絞った聞き方をさせてくれます！

@BeFreed user

このプラットフォームの一番の魅力は、その万能さです。扱えないテーマは文字どおりひとつもありません。何を投げても応えてくれます… 制限がまったくないのに約束をきちんと果たしてくれる学習ツールには、なかなか出会えません。

@jayallen

BeFreed は素晴らしいです。使いやすいデザインのおかげで、操作に迷う時間が減り、学ぶ時間が増えました。オーディオブック、ポッドキャスト、学習プランの組み合わせは天才的で、毎日の習慣がすっかり変わりました。

@BeFreed user

最初はイタリア語でポッドキャストを作る方法を理解するのに少し時間がかかりましたが、わかった瞬間、最高でした！どんなテーマでも説明してもらえて、しかもとても賢く、うまく話してくれます！

@matteo77

BeFreed は毎日使うオーディオブックアプリになりました… 一番気に入っているのは、自分のテキストを入れると、外出先でも聞ける音声にしてくれるところです。

@kotanzu1

役立つ情報やアイデアを 8〜15 分のポッドキャスト風音声にぎゅっとまとめて聞けるのが最高です。ポッドキャストは余計な話が多くて苦手でしたが、これは無駄を全部そぎ落としてくれます。

@BeFreed user

博士課程の仕上げの段階で、なじみのない資料を大量に読む必要があります… BeFreed ならプロンプトを入力するだけで、アプリが資料を探して音声ポッドキャストを作ってくれます。BeFreed のほうが NotebookLM よりも流れがスムーズだと感じます。

@Brad

朝食を作りながら、散歩しながら、通勤しながら聞くものを YouTube でよく探していましたが、BeFreed は広告も余計な話もなしで、もっと的を絞った聞き方をさせてくれます！

@BeFreed user

このプラットフォームの一番の魅力は、その万能さです。扱えないテーマは文字どおりひとつもありません。何を投げても応えてくれます… 制限がまったくないのに約束をきちんと果たしてくれる学習ツールには、なかなか出会えません。

@jayallen

BeFreed は素晴らしいです。使いやすいデザインのおかげで、操作に迷う時間が減り、学ぶ時間が増えました。オーディオブック、ポッドキャスト、学習プランの組み合わせは天才的で、毎日の習慣がすっかり変わりました。

@BeFreed user

最初はイタリア語でポッドキャストを作る方法を理解するのに少し時間がかかりましたが、わかった瞬間、最高でした！どんなテーマでも説明してもらえて、しかもとても賢く、うまく話してくれます！

@matteo77

BeFreed は毎日使うオーディオブックアプリになりました… 一番気に入っているのは、自分のテキストを入れると、外出先でも聞ける音声にしてくれるところです。

@kotanzu1

BeFreedがウェブ上でどのように話題になっているかをもっと見る

今すぐ学習の旅を始めよう

第9章

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約の概要

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約をさまざまな学習スタイルで探る

When Risk Management Becomes the Risk: The Hidden Dangers of Flawed Methods

The Crisis in Risk Management: Why Most Methods Don't Work

聴きながら、すべての言葉を目で追えます

The Tower of Babel: How Confusion About Risk Creates Vulnerability

The Limits of Expert Judgment: Why We're Overconfident About Uncertainty

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約をもっと深く楽しむ

Worse Than Useless: The Fatal Flaws in Risk Matrices

Obstacles to Better Risk Management: Bears, Swans, and Mathematical Misconceptions

聴きながら、すべての言葉を目で追えます

A Simple Solution: The One-for-One Substitution Model

Building a Risk-Intelligent Organization: From Models to Culture

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約をもっと深く楽しむ

The Path Forward: Embracing Quantitative Risk Management

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約を最後まで読み終えました

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約の主要テーマ

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約の名言集

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約の登場人物

著者について

リスクマネジメントの敗北の要約をダウンロード

他のユーザーのお気に入り

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約についてのよくある質問

What is The Failure of Risk Management by Douglas W. Hubbard about?

Who should read The Failure of Risk Management?

Is The Failure of Risk Management worth reading?

What are the main ideas in The Failure of Risk Management?

この学習プランの一部

survive as an auditor

Vendita Modello 231 e Assetti Organizzativi

Plan Hazard Risk & Implementation Design

Master construction risk management basics

もっと見る

BeFreedは好奇心旺盛な仲間が集うグローバルコミュニティ

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約をさまざまな学習スタイルで探る

When Risk Management Becomes the Risk: The Hidden Dangers of Flawed Methods

The Crisis in Risk Management: Why Most Methods Don't Work

聴きながら、すべての言葉を目で追えます

The Tower of Babel: How Confusion About Risk Creates Vulnerability

The Limits of Expert Judgment: Why We're Overconfident About Uncertainty

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約をもっと深く楽しむ

Worse Than Useless: The Fatal Flaws in Risk Matrices

Obstacles to Better Risk Management: Bears, Swans, and Mathematical Misconceptions

聴きながら、すべての言葉を目で追えます

A Simple Solution: The One-for-One Substitution Model

Building a Risk-Intelligent Organization: From Models to Culture

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約をもっと深く楽しむ

The Path Forward: Embracing Quantitative Risk Management

『リスクマネジメントの敗北』の要約を最後まで読み終えました

他のユーザーのお気に入り

この学習プランの一部

survive as an auditor

Vendita Modello 231 e Assetti Organizzativi

Plan Hazard Risk & Implementation Design

Master construction risk management basics

もっと見る