Risk and Quantification: A Linguistic Study

In risk analysis and research, the concept of risk is often understood quantitatively. For example, risk is commonly defined as the probability of an unwanted event or as its probability multiplied by its consequences. This article addresses (1) to what extent and (2) how the noun risk is actually used quantitatively. Uses of the noun risk are analyzed in four linguistic corpora, both Swedish and English (mostly American English). In total, over 16,000 uses of the noun risk are studied in 14 random (n = 500) or complete samples (where n ranges from 173 to 5,144) of, for example, news and magazine articles, fiction, and websites of government agencies. In contrast to the widespread definition of risk as a quantity, a main finding is that the noun risk is mostly used nonquantitatively. Furthermore, when used quantitatively, the quantification is seldom numerical, instead relying on less precise expressions of quantification, such as high risk and increased risk. The relatively low frequency of quantification in a wide range of language material suggests a quantification bias in many areas of risk theory, that is, overestimation of the importance of quantification in defining the concept of risk. The findings are also discussed in relation to fuzzy‐trace theory. Findings of this study confirm, as suggested by fuzzy‐trace theory, that vague representations are prominent in quantification of risk. The application of the terminology of fuzzy‐trace theory for explaining the patterns of language use are discussed.     

Mixed Messages in Risk Communication

The exchange of risk information between risk managers and affected parties is frequently hampered by differences in the understanding or interpretation of many words and phrases. Much of the terminology used by risk practitioners may have different "technical" and "colloquial" meanings, resulting in "mixed messages" in risk communication. Several words and concepts commonly used in risk management that may be resulting in these "mixed messages" are discussed. These include primary underlying concepts, such as the various meanings of the word "risk" itself, as well as the perplexity of the notions of "safety vs. zero risk" and "probability". The potential "mixed messages" of the derived concepts of "significant vs. nonsignificant", "negative vs. positive results", "conservative assumptions", "population vs. individual risk", "relative vs. absolute risk", and "association vs. causation" are shown to range from mild confusion to the completely opposite interpretation of these words and expressions. Suggested strategies for recognizing and mitigating the use of words and phrases which may create unnecessary confusion are presented.     

Evaluating and improving risk formulas for allocating limited budgets to expensive risk-reduction opportunities

Simple risk formulas, such as risk = probability × impact, or risk = exposure × probability × consequence, or risk = threat × vulnerability × consequence, are built into many commercial risk management software products deployed in public and private organizations. These formulas, which we call risk indices, together with risk matrices, “heat maps,” and other displays based on them, are widely used in applications such as enterprise risk management (ERM), terrorism risk analysis, and occupational safety. But, how well do they serve to guide allocation of limited risk management resources? This article evaluates and compares different risk indices under simplifying conditions favorable to their use (statistically independent, uniformly distributed values of their components; and noninteracting risk‐reduction opportunities). Compared to an optimal (nonindex) approach, simple indices produce inferior resource allocations that for a given cost may reduce risk by as little as 60% of what the optimal decisions would provide, at least in our simple simulations. This article suggests a better risk reduction per unit cost index that achieves 98–100% of the maximum possible risk reduction on these problems for all budget levels except the smallest, which allow very few risks to be addressed. Substantial gains in risk reduction achieved for resources spent can be obtained on our test problems by using this improved index instead of simpler ones that focus only on relative sizes of risk (or of components of risk) in informing risk management priorities and allocating limited risk management resources. This work suggests the need for risk management tools to explicitly consider costs in prioritization activities, particularly in situations where budget restrictions make careful allocation of resources essential for achieving close‐to‐maximum risk‐reduction benefits.     

On the Existence of Pure and Mixed Strategy Nash Equilibria in Discontinuous Games

A game is better-reply secure if for every nonequilibrium strategy x^* and every payoff vector limit u^* resulting from strategies approaching x^*, some player i has a strategy yielding a payoff strictly above u_i^* even if the others deviate slightly from x^*. If strategy spaces are compact and convex, payoffs are quasiconcave in the owner's strategy, and the game is better-reply secure, then a pure strategy Nash equilibrium exists. Better-reply security holds in many economic games. It also permits new results on the existence of symmetric and mixed strategy Nash equilibria.     

Risk,Process Maturity,and Project Performance: An Empirical Analysis of US Federal Government Technology Projects

In recent years, there has been increasing pressure on the US federal government to reduce spending and improve the management of its technology projects. Mitigating the adverse impact of risks on the performance of these projects presents a significant challenge for its stakeholders. Our research examines this challenge in two steps. First, we identify and define a set of salient risks in federal technology projects—specifically, complexity risk and contracting risk in the planning process, and execution risk in the execution process. Next, we investigate whether higher levels of process maturity, assessed by the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework, mitigate the negative effect of project risks on project performance. The analysis of time‐series data collected from 82 federal technology projects across 519 quarterly time periods indicates that each of the three types of risks has a significant negative effect on project performance. This finding highlights the practical significance of managing these risks in the federal technology project context. Further, we find that increasing levels of process maturity attenuate the negative effect of project risks on the performance of federal technology projects. However, the attenuation effects are consequential only at high levels of project risks; at low levels of project risk, increasing levels of process maturity can adversely affect project performance. To demonstrate the financial implications of increasing process maturity levels in federal technology projects, we examine the magnitude of project cost savings (and overruns) across different levels of CMMI and project risks. In summary, our study contributes to the sparse literature on public sector operations by addressing the understudied context of federal technology projects, and provides a nuanced examination of the implications of process maturity in managing the risk to performance relationship in such projects.     

Workforce/Population,Economy, Infrastructure,Geography, Hierarchy,and Time (WEIGHT): Reflections on the Plural Dimensions of Disaster Resilience

The concept of resilience and its relevance to disaster risk management has increasingly gained attention in recent years. It is common for risk and resilience studies to model system recovery by analyzing a single or aggregated measure of performance, such as economic output or system functionality. However, the history of past disasters and recent risk literature suggest that a single-dimension view of relevant systems is not only insufficient, but can compromise the ability to manage risk for these systems. In this article, we explore how multiple dimensions influence the ability for complex systems to function and effectively recover after a disaster. In particular, we compile evidence from the many competing resilience perspectives to identify the most critical resilience dimensions across several academic disciplines, applications, and disaster events. The findings demonstrate the need for a conceptual framework that decomposes resilience into six primary dimensions: workforce/population, economy, infrastructure, geography, hierarchy, and time (WEIGHT). These dimensions are not typically addressed holistically in the literature; often they are either modeled independently or in piecemeal combinations. The current research is the first to provide a comprehensive discussion of each resilience dimension and discuss how these dimensions can be integrated into a cohesive framework, suggesting that no single dimension is sufficient for a holistic analysis of a disaster risk management. Through this article, we also aim to spark discussions among researchers and policymakers to develop a multicriteria decision framework for evaluating the efficacy of resilience strategies. Furthermore, the WEIGHT dimensions may also be used to motivate the generation of new approaches for data analytics of resilience-related knowledge bases.     

RISK SHARING,COMMITMENT, AND INFORMATION: AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS

This paper describes and analyzes the results of a unique field experiment especially designed to test the effects of the level of commitment and information available to individuals when sharing risk. We find that limiting exogenously provided commitmentis associated with less risk sharing, whereas limiting information on defections can be associated with more risk sharing. These results can be understood by distinguishing between intrinsic and extrinsic incentives, and by recognizing that social sanctions are costly to inflict or that individuals suffer from time‐inconsistent preferences. Comparing the groups formed within our experiment with the real life risk‐sharing networks in a few villages allows us to test the external validity of our experiment and suggests that the results are salient to our understanding of risk‐sharing arrangements observed in developing countries. (JEL: C93, D71, D81, O12)     

How Safe Is Safe Enough for Self‐Driving Vehicles?

Self‐driving vehicles (SDVs) promise to considerably reduce traffic crashes. One pressing concern facing the public, automakers, and governments is “How safe is safe enough for SDVs?” To answer this question, a new expressed‐preference approach was proposed for the first time to determine the socially acceptable risk of SDVs. In our between‐subject survey (N = 499), we determined the respondents’ risk‐acceptance rate of scenarios with varying traffic‐risk frequencies to examine the logarithmic relationships between the traffic‐risk frequency and risk‐acceptance rate. Logarithmic regression models of SDVs were compared to those of human‐driven vehicles (HDVs); the results showed that SDVs were required to be safer than HDVs. Given the same traffic‐risk‐acceptance rates for SDVs and HDVs, their associated acceptable risk frequencies of SDVs and HDVs were predicted and compared. Two risk‐acceptance criteria emerged: the tolerable risk criterion, which indicates that SDVs should be four to five times as safe as HDVs, and the broadly acceptable risk criterion, which suggests that half of the respondents hoped that the traffic risk of SDVs would be two orders of magnitude lower than the current estimated traffic risk. The approach and these results could provide insights for government regulatory authorities for establishing clear safety requirements for SDVs.     

Developing a factor model of coal miners’ attributions on risk-taking at work

This paper details a survey of coal miners’ views on the bases for risk-taking. While literature exists on the subject of risk-taking in mines, comparatively few studies have sought to elicit the views of mine personnel themselves. An 83-item questionnaire, grounded upon insights from an earlier qualitative study, was developed and distributed to a sample of mine personnel (N=932). Results were analysed by means of principal components, factor analysis, an iterative refinement of the data set resulting in the development of a three-factor model that was considered to reflect potentially important dispositional influences on risk-taking amongst operational staff in mines. Derived constructs, identified as time pressure, management commitment and confidence in ability to control risk, were found to possess moderate to high levels of internal consistency (α statistic) and high face validity. Findings are discussed with reference to insights from both cognitive risk research and more recent work within the safety culture/climate framework.     

Premature Deaths,Statistical Lives,and Years of Life Lost: Identification,Quantification, and Valuation of Mortality Risks

Mortality effects of exposure to air pollution and other environmental hazards are often described by the estimated number of “premature” or “attributable” deaths and the economic value of a reduction in exposure as the product of an estimate of “statistical lives saved” and a “value per statistical life.” These terms can be misleading because the number of deaths advanced by exposure cannot be determined from mortality data alone, whether from epidemiology or randomized trials (it is not statistically identified). The fraction of deaths “attributed” to exposure is conventionally derived as the hazard fraction (R – 1)/R, where R is the relative risk of mortality between high and low exposure levels. The fraction of deaths advanced by exposure (the “etiologic” fraction) can be substantially larger or smaller: it can be as large as one and as small as 1/e (≈0.37) times the hazard fraction (if the association is causal and zero otherwise). Recent literature reveals misunderstanding about these concepts. Total life years lost in a population due to exposure can be estimated but cannot be disaggregated by age or cause of death. Economic valuation of a change in exposure-related mortality risk to a population is not affected by inability to know the fraction of deaths that are etiologic. When individuals facing larger or smaller changes in mortality risk cannot be identified, the mean change in population hazard is sufficient for valuation; otherwise, the economic value can depend on the distribution of risk reductions.     

Game Theory and Risk Analysis

Risk analysts often analyze adversarial risks from terrorists or other intelligent attackers without mentioning game theory. Why? One reason is that many adversarial situations—those that can be represented as attacker‐defender games, in which the defender first chooses an allocation of defensive resources to protect potential targets, and the attacker, knowing what the defender has done, then decides which targets to attack—can be modeled and analyzed successfully without using most of the concepts and terminology of game theory. However, risk analysis and game theory are also deeply complementary. Game‐theoretic analyses of conflicts require modeling the probable consequences of each choice of strategies by the players and assessing the expected utilities of these probable consequences. Decision and risk analysis methods are well suited to accomplish these tasks. Conversely, game‐theoretic formulations of attack‐defense conflicts (and other adversarial risks) can greatly improve upon some current risk analyses that attempt to model attacker decisions as random variables or uncertain attributes of targets (“threats”) and that seek to elicit their values from the defender's own experts. Game theory models that clarify the nature of the interacting decisions made by attackers and defenders and that distinguish clearly between strategic choices (decision nodes in a game tree) and random variables (chance nodes, not controlled by either attacker or defender) can produce more sensible and effective risk management recommendations for allocating defensive resources than current risk scoring models. Thus, risk analysis and game theory are (or should be) mutually reinforcing.     

The problems of total quality

The aim of this paper is to help provide a better understanding of the basic concepts of total quality through a critical discussion. Six main topics will be touched upon; language and terminology problems, the historical framework of quality-related concepts (like kaizen or continuous improvement) vis-á-vis other managerial models (specifically, the learning curve), the role played by demand and its fluctuations, the contrast between a process-based and a result-based approach, the relationship between total quality and certified quality, the implications of total quality for the industrial environment and the relationships between companies and trade-unions.     

Foundational Challenges for Advancing the Field and Discipline of Risk Analysis

Risk analysis as a field and discipline is about concepts, principles, approaches, methods, and models for understanding, assessing, communicating, managing, and governing risk. The foundation of this field and discipline has been subject to continuous discussion since its origin some 40 years ago with the establishment of the Society for Risk Analysis and the Risk Analysis journal. This article provides a perspective on critical foundational challenges that this field and discipline faces today, for risk analysis to develop and have societal impact. Topics discussed include fundamental questions important for defining the risk field, discipline, and science; the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary features of risk analysis; the interactions and dependencies with other sciences; terminology and fundamental principles; and current developments and trends, such as the use of artificial intelligence.     

Complements or Substitutes? Culture–Technology Interactions in Healthcare

The U.S. government recommends that hospitals adopt Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) systems to improve the quality problems that plague U.S. hospitals. However, CPOE studies show mixed results. We hypothesize that CPOE effectiveness depends on the prevalence of patient safety culture within a hospital. Using organizational information processing theory, we describe how patient safety culture and CPOE enable healthcare organizations to better process information. Specifically, we posit that CPOE complements some aspects of patient safety culture and substitutes for others. Using ridge regression, we empirically test this proposition using data from 268 hospitals and multiple data sources. Results show that while CPOE complements the patient safety dimensions of handoffs and transitions, feedback and communication about error, and organizational learning, CPOE substitutes for the dimension of management support for safety, in the context of our dependent variable. As organizations work to implement new systems, this research can help decision‐makers understand how culture impacts such initiatives and account for culture when anticipating effects.     

Efficient or Fair? Operationalizing Ethical Principles in Flood Risk Management: A Case Study on the Dutch-German Rhine

Flood risk management decisions in many countries are based on decision-support frameworks which rely on cost-benefit analyses. Such frameworks are seldom informative about the geographical distribution of risk, raising questions on the fairness of the proposed policies. In the present work, we propose a new decision criterion that accounts for the distribution of risk reduction and apply it to support flood risk management decisions on a transboundary stretch of the Rhine River. Three types of interventions are considered: embankment heightening, making Room for the River, and changing the discharge distribution of the river branches. The analysis involves solving a flood risk management problem according to four alternative formulations, based on different ethical principles. Formulations based on cost optimization lead to very poor performances in some areas for the sake of reducing the overall aggregated costs. Formulations that also include equity criteria have different results depending on how these are defined. When risk reduction is distributed equally, very poor economic performance is achieved. When risk is distributed equally, results are in line with formulations based on cost optimization, while a fairer risk distribution is achieved. Risk reduction measures also differ, with the cost optimization approach strongly favoring the leverage of changing the discharge distribution and the alternative formulations spending more on embankment heightening and Room for the River, to rebalance inequalities in risk levels. The proposed method advances risk-based decision-making by allowing to consider risk distribution aspects and their impacts on the choice of risk reduction measures.     

On the Complex Definition of Risk: A Systems-Based Approach

The premise of this article is that risk to a system, as well as its vulnerability and resilience, can be understood, defined, and quantified most effectively through a systems-based philosophical and methodological approach, and by recognizing the central role of the system states in this process. A universally agreed-upon definition of risk has been difficult to develop; one reason is that the concept is multidimensional and nuanced. It requires an understanding that risk to a system is inherently and fundamentally a function of the initiating event, the states of the system and of its environment, and the time frame. In defining risk, this article posits that: (a) the performance capabilities of a system are a function of its state vector; (b) a system's vulnerability and resilience vectors are each a function of the input (e.g., initiating event), its time of occurrence, and the states of the system; (c) the consequences are a function of the specificity and time of the event, the vector of the states, the vulnerability, and the resilience of the system; (d) the states of a system are time-dependent and commonly fraught with variability uncertainties and knowledge uncertainties; and (e) risk is a measure of the probability and severity of consequences. The above implies that modeling must evaluate consequences for each risk scenario as functions of the threat (initiating event), the vulnerability and resilience of the system, and the time of the event. This fundamentally complex modeling and analysis process cannot be performed correctly and effectively without relying on the states of the system being studied.     

Re‐storying the Business,Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Concepts: The Model‐Narrative Review Method

We propose a novel literature review method in order to systematically trace and reveal the dominant narratives of a body of literature: the model‐narrative review method. We apply this method to an ever‐growing literature on ecosystems in business studies, as it resembles a rich knowledge base with somewhat competing, overarching stories, replete with emplotted characters, systematic puzzles and embellished scientific drama. To interpret these unfolding storylines, we both separately engage with and connect seminal work on business, entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems. Through thematic reading we map the key themes and scientific puzzles in each ecosystem type. Through enstoried reading we identify how authors construct the plot, narrative setting, emplotted characters, narrative voices and moral lessons around ecosystems. Through rhetorical reading we explicate the rhetorical devices and strategies that claim the relevance of their work. Our findings expose a number of hidden meanings and underlying assumptions, adding transparency to ecosystem rhetorics and enhancing conceptual clarity. Altogether, this method offers a systematic construction of model‐narratives to synthesize and critically reflect upon similarities and differences between related concepts and opens up space for alternative research questions.     

Ambiguity Aversion,Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences

We characterize, in the Anscombe–Aumann framework, the preferences for which there are a utility functionu on outcomes and an ambiguity indexc on the set of probabilities on the states of the world such that, for all acts f and g, . The function u represents the decision maker's risk attitudes, while the index c captures his ambiguity attitudes. These preferences include the multiple priors preferences of Gilboa and Schmeidler and the multiplier preferences of Hansen and Sargent. This provides a rigorous decision‐theoretic foundation for the latter model, which has been widely used in macroeconomics and finance.     

Inter-organizational governance: a review,conceptualisation and extension

Abstract

Although the concepts of relational and contractual governance in inter-organizational relationships have attracted academic and practitioner interest over the last decades, to date there have been limited comprehensive and systematic efforts to review, analyse and synthesise extant literature. We review and analyse 1,415 publications identified from a wide range of management disciplines and journals from 1990 to 2018. We deploy bibliographic and content analyses to offer a comprehensive literature analyses and synthesis and subsequently develop and position a multidimensional framework of exchange governance. The proposed framework covers existing conceptualisations of exchange governance and its diverse mechanisms, environmental dimensions influencing the use of exchange governance mechanisms and performance implications. We uncover areas that are currently under-studied and draw out fruitful future research avenues.