Hi I am interested in having the information about the Risk Management Practices in the Public Sector Company like ONGC?

In general society segment set-up the balanced governance, the danger administration practices are much more grounded. In the private segment the highest need is for development and in the process they influence. In PSUs, the inclination is that development is optional, first is dependability. Consequently all basic leadership forms dependably attempt to take a gander at the drawback of the choice and possibility arranging. This develops the inherent estimation of the PSUs, which turned out distinctively in the most recent year of monetary turmoil.

If there should be an occurrence of ONGC, the board examined the monetary accident with the board. At the point when the unrefined petroleum costs collided with $35 levels the primary inquiry before us was whether we ought to stop the venture choices tackled a higher value suspicion. The speculation skyline is much long haul like 20-30 years. ONGC was extremely positive about the raw petroleum costs won't stay at the low level for long and the board remained commited about the ventures.

Therefore a year ago in the most noticeably bad of the time ONGC had Rs 90,000 crore of speculation proposition under usage. The capacity of PSUs to proceed with their venture programs notwithstanding the monetary stun unquestionably had a multiplier impact. This was useful for employment creation and liquidity. On account of the basic quality we could manage those compelling conditions and continue.

It is denounced that the basic leadership process in PSUs is tedious some of the time properly, once in a while wrongly. In any case, it is not because of any remissness with respect to the administration. Taking into account my experience the administration in a PSU trudges substantially more than in the private segment. Be that as it may, time is lost because of so large portions of governing rules in the framework and to make a review trail.

Above all else there are such a large number of offices to autonomously analyze the choices taken by a PSU that the responsibility in a PSU is ceaseless. The Management need to leave a nitty gritty review trail for every one of the choices. It has to report the whole basic leadership process. The choices or exercises can be addressed by among others the regulatory service, arranging commission, fund service, parliamentary board of trustees, RTI, CVC and CAG. When you realize that your choice is prone to be addressed by any of these offices, one is additional cautious in taking choices.

Next, it needs to have point by point rules and systems for every single movement from tendering, to sourcing administrations or materials, to granting contracts, which we need to take after fastidiously. In spite of the fact that they are called rules, in the event that you veer off even somewhat, you are welcoming inconvenience. In the event that you take a choice today and after three years on the off chance that somebody questions it, by what means will you clarify what were the circumstances. Along these lines, better take after the method, don't go astray. Accordingly, it dedicates any longer hours in making a review trail.

Again no choice in a PSU is taken by a solitary individual. The same employment, which in private area is finished by a solitary individual, is finished by a council of 4-5 individuals in a PSU. This defers the procedure yet the constructive side is that when there are such a large number of individuals assembling their heads the shortcomings in basic leadership forms get sorted out. So the PSU choices turn out much more grounded.