Description and Evaluation of an Approach to Implementing Programs in Organizational Settings

A broad-based approach to implementing programs is described and evaluation information is reported from two investigations of its use by program managers in educational organizations. The approach consists of a framework of program implementation factors from which implementation procedures are derived. The procedures then are used by a manager to help facilitate implementation of a program according to plan. In the first investigation, three program managers were trained in the approach to assist them in implementing a behavioral group counseling program in three public high schools. In the second investigation, a program manager was trained to help implement a case management system in an elementary school. Results of both investigations suggest that managers were able to utilize the program implementation procedures, with their respective programs being more completely implemented when the procedures were applied. Reactions aboul the approach obtained from human service program managers, following both investigations, suggest that it may be a worthwhile managerial strategy. Advantages and limitations of the approach are considered and its relationship to organizational behavior management is discussed.     

A new approach to risk evaluation and management: risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies.

Our concept of nine risk evaluation criteria, six risk classes, a decision tree, and three management categories was developed to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and political feasibility of risk management procedures. The main task of risk evaluation and management is to develop adequate tools for dealing with the problems of complexity, uncertainty. and ambiguity. Based on the characteristics of different risk types and these three major problems, we distinguished three types of management--risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. The risk-based strategy--is the common solution to risk problems. Once the probabilities and their corresponding damage potentials are calculated, risk managers are required to set priorities according to the severity of the risk, which may be operationalized as a linear combination of damage and probability or as a weighted combination thereof. Within our new risk classification, the two central components have been augmented with other physical and social criteria that still demand risk-based strategies as long as uncertainty is low and ambiguity absent. Risk-based strategies are best solutions to problems of complexity and some components of uncertainty, for example, variation among individuals. If the two most important risk criteria, probability of occurrence and extent of damage, are relatively well known and little uncertainty is left, the traditional risk-based approach seems reasonable. If uncertainty plays a large role, in particular, indeterminacy or lack of knowledge, the risk-based approach becomes counterproductive. Judging the relative severity of risks on the basis of uncertain parameters does not make much sense. Under these circumstances, management strategies belonging to the precautionary management style are required. The precautionary approach has been the basis for much of the European environmental and health protection legislation and regulation. Our own approach to risk management has been guided by the proposition that any conceptualization of the precautionary principle should be (1) in line with established methods of scientific risk assessments, (2) consistent and discriminatory (avoiding arbitrary results) when it comes to prioritization, and (3) at the same time, specific with respect to precautionary measures, such as ALARA or BACT, or the strategy of containing risks in time and space. This suggestion does, however, entail a major problem: looking only to the uncertainties does not provide risk managers with a clue about where to set priorities for risk reduction. Risks vary in their degree of remaining uncertainties. How can one judge the severity of a situation when the potential damage and its probability are unknown or contested? In this dilemma, we advise risk managers to use additional criteria of hazardousness, such as "ubiquity versibility," and "pervasiveness over time," as proxies for judging severity. Our approach also distinguishes clearly between uncertainty and ambiguity. Uncertainty refers to a situation of being unclear about factual statements; ambiguity to a situation of contested views about the desirability or severity of a given hazard. Uncertainty can be resolved in principle by more cognitive advances (with the exception of indeterminacy). ambiguity only by discourse. Discursive procedures include legal deliberations as well as novel participatory approaches. In addition, discursive methods of planning and conflict resolution can be used. If ambiguities are associated with a risk problem, it is not enough to demonstrate that risk regulators are open to public concerns and address the issues that many people wish them to take care ot The process of risk evaluation itself needs to be open to public input and new forms of deliberation. We have recommended a tested set of deliberative processes that are, at least in principle, capable of resolving ambiguities in risk debates (for a review, see Renn, Webler, & Wiedemaun. 1995). Deliberative processes are needed, however, for ail three types of management. Risk-based management relies on epistemiological, uncertainty-based management on reflective, and discourse-based management on participatory discourse forms. These three types of discourse could be labeled as an analytic-deliberative procedure for risk evaluation and management. We see the advantage of a deliberative style of regulation and management in a dynamic balance between procedure and outcome. Procedure should not have priority over the outcome; outcome should not have priority over the procedure. An intelligent combination of both can elaborate the required prerequisites of democratic deliberation and its substantial outcomes to enhance the legitimacy of political decisions (Guttman & Thompson, 1996; Bohman, 1997. 1998).     

Application of the Precautionary Principle by Senior Policy Officials: Results of a Canadian Survey

Though use of the controversial precautionary principle in risk management has increasingly been recommended as a guide for the construction of public policy in Canada and elsewhere, there are few data available characterizing its use in risk management by senior public policymakers. Using established survey methodology we sought to investigate the perceptions and terms of application of the precautionary principle in this important subset of individuals. A total of 240 surveys were sent out to seven departments or agencies in the Canadian government. The overall survey response rate was 26.6%, and our findings need to be interpreted in the context of possible responder bias. Of respondents, the overwhelming majority perceived the precautionary principle and the management of risk as complementary, and endorsed a role for the precautionary principle as a general guideline for all risk management decisions. However, 25% of respondents responded that the lack of clarity of the definition of the principle was a limitation to its effective use. The majority of respondents viewed their own level of understanding of the precautionary principle as moderate. Risk managers appeared to favor an interpretation of the precautionary principle that was based on the seriousness and irreversibility of the threat of damage, and did not endorse as strongly the need for cost effectiveness in the measures taken as a precaution against such threats. In contrast with its perceived role as a general guideline, the application of the precautionary principle by respondents was highly variable, with >60% of respondents reporting using the precautionary principle in one-quarter or less of all risk management decisions. Several factors influenced whether the precautionary principle was applied with the perceived seriousness of the threat being considered the most influential factor. The overwhelming majority of risk managers felt that "preponderance of evidence" was the level of evidence required for precautionary action to be instituted against a serious negative event. Overall, the majority of respondents viewed the precautionary principle as having a significant and positive impact on risk management decisions. Importantly, respondents endorsed a net result of more good than harm to society when the precautionary principle was applied to the management of risk.     

When Precaution Creates Misunderstandings: The Unintended Effects of Precautionary Information on Perceived Risks,the EMF Case

In the past decade, growing public concern about novel technologies with uncertain potential long‐term impacts on the environment and human health has moved risk policies toward a more precautionary approach. Focusing on mobile telephony, the effects of precautionary information on risk perception were analyzed. A pooled multinational experimental study based on a 5 × 2 × 2 factorial design was conducted in nine countries. The first factor refers to whether or not information on different types of precautionary measures was present, the second factor to the framing of the precautionary information, and the third factor to the order in which cell phones and base stations were rated by the study participants. The data analysis on the country level indicates different effects. The main hypothesis that informing about precautionary measures results in increased risk perceptions found only partial support in the data. The effects are weaker, both in terms of the effect size and the frequency of significant effects, across the various precautionary information formats used in the experiment. Nevertheless, our findings do not support the assumption that informing people about implemented precautionary measures will decrease public concerns.     

Risk Management and the Precautionary Principle: A Fuzzy Logic Model

The aim of this article is to illustrate a procedure for applying the precautionary principle within a strategy for reducing the possibility of underestimating the effective risk caused by a phenomenon, product, or process, and of adopting insufficient risk reduction measures or overlooking their need. We start by simply defining risk as the product between the numerical expression of the adverse consequences of an event and the likelihood of its occurrence or the likelihood that such consequences will occur. Uncertainty in likelihood estimates and several key concepts inherent to the precautionary principle, such as sufficient certainty, prevention, and desired level of protection, are represented as fuzzy sets. The strategy described may be viewed as a simplified example of a precautionary decision process that has been chiefly conceived as a theoretical contribution to the debate concerning the precautionary principle, the quantification of its application, and the formal approach to such problems.     

A Model for Managing Corporate Sustainability

The world is faced with unprecedented global economic, environmental, and social challenges. Sustainable development has emerged as an organizing principle for addressing these issues. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is seen as the business contribution to sustainable development. The article defines CSR as an organization's efforts to secure resources and legitimacy for survival or competitive advantage by managing nonmarket and nonregulated issues arising from complex social and environmental problems. Supporting this definition, the “sustainability issue management” (SIM) model is presented to help managers and researchers assess and manage CSR issues. Based on ecological economics, the tool originated from a larger study. The model is used to explain and discuss how the UK Government's National Indicator 185 (requiring carbon reporting from Local Authorities) shaped the action of a supplier to Local Authorities. The case illustrates how the SIM model can help both managers and researchers understand and manage CSR issues.     

Clarifying Types of Uncertainty: When Are Models Accurate,and Uncertainties Small?

Professor Aven has recently noted the importance of clarifying the meaning of terms such as "scientific uncertainty" for use in risk management and policy decisions, such as when to trigger application of the precautionary principle. This comment examines some fundamental conceptual challenges for efforts to define "accurate" models and "small" input uncertainties by showing that increasing uncertainty in model inputs may reduce uncertainty in model outputs; that even correct models with "small" input uncertainties need not yield accurate or useful predictions for quantities of interest in risk management (such as the duration of an epidemic); and that accurate predictive models need not be accurate causal models.     

On Different Types of Uncertainties in the Context of the Precautionary Principle

Few policies for risk management have created more controversy than the precautionary principle. A main problem is the extreme number of different definitions and interpretations. Almost all definitions of the precautionary principle identify “scientific uncertainties” as the trigger or criterion for its invocation; however, the meaning of this concept is not clear. For applying the precautionary principle it is not sufficient that the threats or hazards are uncertain. A stronger requirement is needed. This article provides an in‐depth analysis of this issue. We question how the scientific uncertainties are linked to the interpretation of the probability concept, expected values, the results from probabilistic risk assessments, the common distinction between aleatory uncertainties and epistemic uncertainties, and the problem of establishing an accurate prediction model (cause‐effect relationship). A new classification structure is suggested to define what scientific uncertainties mean.     

From Blaming the Middle to Harnessing its Potential: Creating Change Intermediaries

Middle managers have been under attack as organizational downsizing and reengineering have reduced their number. They are also frequently portrayed as obstructive and resistant to change. However, recent research suggests that managers at middle levels in organizations may be able to make a strategic contribution. Data from research on how managers in an organization undergoing transformation experience change are used to build on this existing research to demonstrate that middle managers fulfil a complex 'change intermediary' position during implementation. The findings reveal that a key aspect of this position is the need for middle managers to engage in a range of activities to aid their interpretation of the change intent. This interpretation activity then informs the personal changes they attempt to undertake, how they help others through change, how they keep the business going during the transition and what changes they implement in their departments. The interpretation aspect of their role is often overlooked, leading to workload issues and role conflict. These findings offer an alternative perspective on perceived middle manager resistance and lead into suggestions for future research and organizational implications.     

Anxiety, Politics and Critical Management Education

The focus of this paper is a discussion of anxiety and politics as they relate to business school pedagogy. Using ideas from critical management education (CME), the paper explores why and how to engage with the anxiety mobilized through attempts to learn. The aim is to discuss emotional and political dynamics that are generated, and too often avoided, in management education. Making these dynamics overt in the classroom can help managers to comprehend the political context within which management takes place. Examples informed by CME are presented, as well as reflections from the author on the anxiety and politics that emerge for the critical management educator in a business school context. The contribution in the paper is to show the way that anxieties and politics within the business school classroom offer opportunities to change how business schools approach the teaching of managers. CME adds value to management education because it challenges what and how individuals and groups expect to learn, and consequently it challenges assumptions about how learning takes place within business schools. Such challenges are seen as an important and integral part of 'making the business school more critical'.     

Cellular Automata‐Based Systematic Risk Analysis Approach for Emergency Response

Emergency response is directly related to the allocation of emergency rescue resources. Efficient emergency response can reduce loss of life and property, limit damage from the primary impact, and minimize damage from derivative impacts. An appropriate risk analysis approach in the event of accidents is one rational way to assist emergency response. In this article, a cellular automata‐based systematic approach for conducting risk analysis in emergency response is presented. Three general rules, i.e., diffusive effect, transporting effect, and dissipative effect, are developed to implement cellular automata transition function. The approach takes multiple social factors such as population density and population sensitivity into consideration and it also considers risk of domino accidents that are increasing due to increasing congestion in industrial complexes of a city and increasing density of human population. In addition, two risk indices, i.e., individual risk and aggregated weighted risk, are proposed to assist decision making for emergency managers during emergency response. Individual risk can be useful to plan evacuation strategies, while aggregated weighted risk can help emergency managers to allocate rescue resources rationally according to the degree of danger in each vulnerable area and optimize emergency response programs.     

A Risk-sharing Approach to Transfer Pricing and Incentive Compensation Problems under Exchange Rate Uncertainty*

This study examines the transfer pricing and incentive compensation problems in a multinational enterprise facing currency risk. It is shown that, in the presence of diverse risk preferences among managers, the Hirshleifer (1956) transfer pricing rule results in inefficient resource allocation decisions by division managers. Following the approach developed by Kanodia (1979), two transfer pricing and compensation systems are proposed. The proposed systems enable central management to achieve efficient resource allocation and partial or global risk sharing. It is also argued that the proposed plans can be implemented in conjunction with existing transfer pricing systems that primarily serve tax and tariff concerns.     

Does a Reactor Need a Safety Backfit? Case Study on Communicating Decision and Risk Analysis Information to Managers

An approach to communicating decision and risk analysis findings to managers is illustrated in a real case context. This article consists essentially of a report prepared for senior managers of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to help them make a reactor safety decision. It illustrates the communication of decision analysis findings relating to technical risks, costs, and benefits in support of a major risk management decision: whether or not to require a safety backfit. Its focus is on the needs of decision makers, and it introduces some novel communication devices.     

Tiered Approach to Resilience Assessment

Regulatory agencies have long adopted a three‐tier framework for risk assessment. We build on this structure to propose a tiered approach for resilience assessment that can be integrated into the existing regulatory processes. Comprehensive approaches to assessing resilience at appropriate and operational scales, reconciling analytical complexity as needed with stakeholder needs and resources available, and ultimately creating actionable recommendations to enhance resilience are still lacking. Our proposed framework consists of tiers by which analysts can select resilience assessment and decision support tools to inform associated management actions relative to the scope and urgency of the risk and the capacity of resource managers to improve system resilience. The resilience management framework proposed is not intended to supplant either risk management or the many existing efforts of resilience quantification method development, but instead provide a guide to selecting tools that are appropriate for the given analytic need. The goal of this tiered approach is to intentionally parallel the tiered approach used in regulatory contexts so that resilience assessment might be more easily and quickly integrated into existing structures and with existing policies.     

Consumer Evaluations of Food Risk Management Quality in Europe

In developing and implementing appropriate food risk management strategies, it is important to understand how consumers evaluate the quality of food risk management practices. The aim of this study is to model the underlying psychological factors influencing consumer evaluations of food risk management quality using structural equation modeling techniques (SEM), and to examine the extent to which the influence of these factors is country-specific (comparing respondents from Denmark, Germany, Greece, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom). A survey was developed to model the factors that drive consumer evaluations of food risk management practices and their relative importance (n= 2,533 total respondents). The measurement scales included in the structural model were configurally and metrically invariant across countries. Results show that some factors appear to drive perceptions of effective food risk management in all the countries studied, such as proactive consumer protection, which was positively related to consumers' evaluation of food risk management quality, while opaque and reactive risk management was negatively related to perceived food risk management quality. Other factors appeared to apply only in certain countries. For example, skepticism in risk assessment and communication practices was negatively related to food risk management quality, particularly so in the UK. Expertise of food risk managers appeared to be a key factor in consumers' evaluation of food risk management quality in some countries. However, trust in the honesty of food risk managers did not have a significant effect on food risk management quality. From the results, policy implications for food risk management are discussed and important directions for future research are identified.     

Scenarios,Real Options and Integrated Risk Management

In the 1970s, scenario planning gained prominence as a strategic management tool. Scenario planning encourages managers to envision plausible future states of the world and consider how to take advantage of opportunities and avoid potential threats. In the last decade, finance researchers have developed real option analysis as a way to value investments under uncertainty. Scenario planning and real option analysis have complementary strengths and weaknesses as tools for managers making strategic investment decisions under uncertainty. We combine these two approaches in an integrated risk management process. This process involves scenario development, exposure identification, formulating risk management responses, and implementation steps. We advocate a corporate-level perspective on managing risk that takes into consideration the full range of exposures across a firm’s portfolio of businesses. In contrast with the predominant emphasis on quantitative analysis in the real option literature, this study illustrates qualitative assessment of real options.     

Decision Making for Animal Health and Welfare: Integrating Risk‐Benefit Analysis with Prospect Theory

This study integrated risk‐benefit analysis with prospect theory with the overall objective of identifying the type of management behavior represented by farmers’ choices of mastitis control options (MCOs). Two exploratory factor analyses, based on 163 and 175 Swedish farmers, respectively, highlighted attitudes to MCOs related to: (1) grouping cows and applying milking order to prevent spread of existing infection and (2) working in a precautionary way to prevent mastitis occurring. This was interpreted as being based on (1) reactive management behavior on detection of udder‐health problems in individual cows and (2) proactive management behavior to prevent mastitis developing. Farmers’ assessments of these MCOs were found to be based on asymmetrical evaluations of risks and benefits, suggesting that farmers’ management behavior depends on their individual reference point. In particular, attitudes to MCOs related to grouping cows and applying milking order to prevent the spread of mastitis once infected cows were detected were stronger in the risk domain than in the benefit domain, in accordance with loss aversion. In contrast, attitudes to MCOs related to working in a precautionary way to prevent cows from becoming infected in the first place were stronger in the benefit domain than in the risk domain, in accordance with reverse loss aversion. These findings are of practical importance for farmers and agribusiness and in public health protection work to reduce the current extensive use of antibiotics in dairy herds.