Comments on: Top 10 Issues Facing Directors in 2010 http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/01/08/top-10-issues-facing-directors-in-2010/ Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:00:14 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Gary Larkin http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/01/08/top-10-issues-facing-directors-in-2010/#comment-640 Gary Larkin Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:12:38 +0000 http://tcbblogs.org/governance/?p=241#comment-640 Sean: Intriguing idea. In the states, the words "corporate defense" are usually uttered when referring to hostile takeover bids or a company's adoption of a poison pill plan. Have you written papers on this subject? I recall that I thought saw such a paper. Also, I would be willing to post about such an idea if you have the time and more information. Cheers. Gary Larkin Sean: Intriguing idea. In the states, the words “corporate defense” are usually uttered when referring to hostile takeover bids or a company’s adoption of a poison pill plan. Have you written papers on this subject? I recall that I thought saw such a paper. Also, I would be willing to post about such an idea if you have the time and more information. Cheers.

Gary Larkin

]]> By: Sean Lyons http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/01/08/top-10-issues-facing-directors-in-2010/#comment-636 Sean Lyons Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:01:05 +0000 http://tcbblogs.org/governance/?p=241#comment-636 Gary, You have provided us with a very interesting list. I have particular concerns in relation to numbers 4 and 5. I think the issues raised are very valid ones and a balancing act will be required. Perhaps the two are compatible? I accept that there is most definitely a requirement to focus on risk oversight and to review risk management processes. I also accept that in response to the economic crisis there is a fear that important oversight will be cut as well. I do however believe that both of these issues can be addressed by introducing a coherent corporate defense program. A coherent corporate defense program could help to introduce a systematic approach to the strategic management of all corporate defense related activities (i.e. governance, risk, compliance, intelligence, security, resilience, controls & assurance) in order to help ensure that stakeholders interests are being adequately defended. Such a program could help to proactively defend against a multitude of potential hazards while at the same time helping to optimize the return on existing corporate defense related investment. This would involve integrating and aligning the management of all corporate defense related activities in order to help produce an integrated corporate defense framework. An integrated corporate defense framework could help to reduce overheads and improve performance, increase productivity and reduce costs, while at the same time helping to create a more robust and resilient organization. Improved effectiveness can be achieved through the identification of existing weaknesses and vulnerabilities. By focusing on ongoing process streamlining and re-engineering it could help to unlock latent potential leading to improved performance and increased productivity. Improved efficiencies could be achieved by eliminating existing inefficiencies and reducing bureaucracy, while complying with mandatory obligations. This can be realized through the identification of unnecessary duplications, overlaps, intersections and redundancies. Regards Sean Lyons Selected Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=904765 Gary,

You have provided us with a very interesting list. I have particular concerns in relation to numbers 4 and 5. I think the issues raised are very valid ones and a balancing act will be required. Perhaps the two are compatible?

I accept that there is most definitely a requirement to focus on risk oversight and to review risk management processes. I also accept that in response to the economic crisis there is a fear that important oversight will be cut as well. I do however believe that both of these issues can be addressed by introducing a coherent corporate defense program.

A coherent corporate defense program could help to introduce a systematic approach to the strategic management of all corporate defense related activities (i.e. governance, risk, compliance, intelligence, security, resilience, controls & assurance) in order to help ensure that stakeholders interests are being adequately defended. Such a program could help to proactively defend against a multitude of potential hazards while at the same time helping to optimize the return on existing corporate defense related investment. This would involve integrating and aligning the management of all corporate defense related activities in order to help produce an integrated corporate defense framework. An integrated corporate defense framework could help to reduce overheads and improve performance, increase productivity and reduce costs, while at the same time helping to create a more robust and resilient organization. Improved effectiveness can be achieved through the identification of existing weaknesses and vulnerabilities. By focusing on ongoing process streamlining and re-engineering it could help to unlock latent potential leading to improved performance and increased productivity. Improved efficiencies could be achieved by eliminating existing inefficiencies and reducing bureaucracy, while complying with mandatory obligations. This can be realized through the identification of unnecessary duplications, overlaps, intersections and redundancies.

Regards

Sean Lyons

Selected Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=904765

]]>