PM2 scorecard over ISO 31000 Responses

The management of Intuit wishes to implement a new ERM approach. The firm has discovered that it has to start over and guarantee its stakeholders of improved performance (Fraser, Simkins, Narvaez, 2015). I will assist the firm to implement the most efficient approach that suits its activities. My organization notes that it can apply the PM2 scorecard to ensure that it identifies the challenges that affected its previous model. The approach utilizes five stages to undertake the ERM process (Fraser et al. 2015). Moreover, it has the opportunity to determine whether the ISO 31000, which is highly conventional. I prefer that Intuit employs the ISO 31000 ERM model since it has more benefits than the PM2 Scorecard. The scorecard will necessitate the firm to follow a distinct process to perform the risk assessment process (Fraser et al. 2015). It will also require prior knowledge regarding the impacts and likelihood of risks. However, Intuit lacks reliable records to offer such information. The formula used in the scorecard are also unreliable (Fraser et al. 2015). The presence of confounding variables can enlarge a risk score and lower the efficiency of the risk mitigation process. The ISO 31000 suits Intuit because it is easy to implement. The firm will only install the required applications and execute the risk assessment process (Fraser et al. 2015). Moreover, the programs can be accessed easily. Therefore, the risk mitigation process is highly straightforward. The process does not require scoring of the risks before determining the most critical. The employees will only carry out the risk identification process (Fraser et al. 2015). The duplication associated with the scorecard makes it highly impractical.