An exploration of risk management in global industrial investment

This article explores risk management in global industrial investment by identifying linkages and gaps between theories and practices. It identifies opportunities for further development of the field. Three related bodies of literature have been reviewed: risk management, global manufacturing and investment. The review suggests that risk management in global manufacturing is overlooked in the literature; that existing theoretical risk management processes are not well developed in the global manufacturing context and that the investment literature applies mainly to financial risk assessment rather than investment risk management structures. Further, there appears to be a serious lack of systematic industrial risk management in investment decision making. This article highlights the opportunities to deploy current good practices more effectively as well as the need to develop more robust theories of industrial investment risk management. The approach adopted to investigate this multidisciplinary topic included a historical review of literature to understand the diverse background of theoretical development. A case study research approach was adopted to collect data, involving four global manufacturing companies and one risk management advisory company to observe the patterns and rationale of current practices. Supporting arguments from secondary data sources reinforced the findings. The research focuses risk management in global industrial investment. It links theories with practice to understand the existing knowledge gap and proposes key research themes for further research. © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1460-3799 Risk Management.

Regulation: A Burden in Biopharmaceutical Industry? The Case of EU-Risk Management Plans

The generation of new medicinal products is both a contributor to global economic growth and a source of valuable benefits to human health. Given their direct responsibility for public health, regulatory authorities monitor closely both the development and exploitation of the underlying technologies and the products derived from them. The manner in which such regulation is implemented can result in regulators constraining or facilitating the generation of new products. This paper will study as an example the impact of EU Risk Management Plans (EU-RMPs), which have been mandatory for the approval of new medicines since 2005, on both the industry and regulatory authorities. In interviews, the responses of those who had experience of the implementation of EU-RMPs were mixed. Although the benefits of a more structured and predictable approach to the evaluation of risk were appreciated, some respondents perceived the regulation as an excessive burden on their organisations. The exploration of factors that influence how EU-RMP regulation affects individual firms provides new insights for both regulators and managers, and demonstrates one aspect of the complexity of the process by which new medicinal products are brought to market.

Regulation: A burden in biopharmaceutical industry? The case of EU-risk management plans

The generation of new medicinal products is both a contributor to global economic growth and a source of valuable benefits to human health. Given their direct responsibility for public health, regulatory authorities monitor closely both the development and exploitation of the underlying technologies and the products derived from them. The manner in which such regulation is implemented can result in regulators constraining or facilitating the generation of new products. This paper will study as an example the impact of EU Risk Management Plans (EU-RMPs), which have been mandatory for the approval of new medicines since 2005, on both the industry and regulatory authorities. In interviews, the responses of those who had experience of the implementation of EU-RMPs were mixed. Although the benefits of a more structured and predictable approach to the evaluation of risk were appreciated, some respondents perceived the regulation as an excessive burden on their organisations. The exploration of factors that influence how EU-RMP regulation affects individual firms provides new insights for both regulators and managers, and demonstrates one aspect of the complexity of the process by which new medicinal products are brought to market. © 2010 IEEE.

Neural activity associated with the passive prediction of ambiguity and risk for aversive events.

In economic decision making, outcomes are described in terms of risk (uncertain outcomes with certain probabilities) and ambiguity (uncertain outcomes with uncertain probabilities). Humans are more averse to ambiguity than to risk, with a distinct neural system suggested as mediating this effect. However, there has been no clear disambiguation of activity related to decisions themselves from perceptual processing of ambiguity. In a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiment, we contrasted ambiguity, defined as a lack of information about outcome probabilities, to risk, where outcome probabilities are known, or ignorance, where outcomes are completely unknown and unknowable. We modified previously learned pavlovian CS+ stimuli such that they became an ambiguous cue and contrasted evoked brain activity both with an unmodified predictive CS+ (risky cue), and a cue that conveyed no information about outcome probabilities (ignorance cue). Compared with risk, ambiguous cues elicited activity in posterior inferior frontal gyrus and posterior parietal cortex during outcome anticipation. Furthermore, a similar set of regions was activated when ambiguous cues were compared with ignorance cues. Thus, regions previously shown to be engaged by decisions about ambiguous rewarding outcomes are also engaged by ambiguous outcome prediction in the context of aversive outcomes. Moreover, activation in these regions was seen even when no actual decision is made. Our findings suggest that these regions subserve a general function of contextual analysis when search for hidden information during outcome anticipation is both necessary and meaningful.

Trust-Level Risk Evaluation and Risk Control Guidance in the NHS East of England

In recent years, the healthcare sector has adopted the use of operational risk assessment tools to help understand the systems issues that lead to patient safety incidents. But although these problem-focused tools have improved the ability of healthcare organizations to identify hazards, they have not translated into measurable improvements in patient safety. One possible reason for this is a lack of support for the solution-focused process of risk control. This article describes a content analysis of the risk management strategies, policies, and procedures at all acute (i.e., hospital), mental health, and ambulance trusts (health service organizations) in the East of England area of the British National Health Service. The primary goal was to determine what organizational-level guidance exists to support risk control practice. A secondary goal was to examine the risk evaluation guidance provided by these trusts. With regard to risk control, we found an almost complete lack of useful guidance to promote good practice. With regard to risk evaluation, the trusts relied exclusively on risk matrices. A number of weaknesses were found in the use of this tool, especially related to the guidance for scoring an event's likelihood. We make a number of recommendations to address these concerns. The guidance assessed provides insufficient support for risk control and risk evaluation. This may present a significant barrier to the success of risk management approaches in improving patient safety. © 2013 Society for Risk Analysis.

Risk-sensitivity and the mean-variance trade-off: decision making in sensorimotor control.

Numerous psychophysical studies suggest that the sensorimotor system chooses actions that optimize the average cost associated with a movement. Recently, however, violations of this hypothesis have been reported in line with economic theories of decision-making that not only consider the mean payoff, but are also sensitive to risk, that is the variability of the payoff. Here, we examine the hypothesis that risk-sensitivity in sensorimotor control arises as a mean-variance trade-off in movement costs. We designed a motor task in which participants could choose between a sure motor action that resulted in a fixed amount of effort and a risky motor action that resulted in a variable amount of effort that could be either lower or higher than the fixed effort. By changing the mean effort of the risky action while experimentally fixing its variance, we determined indifference points at which participants chose equiprobably between the sure, fixed amount of effort option and the risky, variable effort option. Depending on whether participants accepted a variable effort with a mean that was higher, lower or equal to the fixed effort, they could be classified as risk-seeking, risk-averse or risk-neutral. Most subjects were risk-sensitive in our task consistent with a mean-variance trade-off in effort, thereby, underlining the importance of risk-sensitivity in computational models of sensorimotor control.

Generating Options for Active Risk Control (GO-ARC): introducing a novel technique.

BACKGROUND: After investing significant amounts of time and money in conducting formal risk assessments, such as root cause analysis (RCA) or failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), healthcare workers are left to their own devices in generating high-quality risk control options. They often experience difficulty in doing so, and tend toward an overreliance on administrative controls (the weakest category in the hierarchy of risk controls). This has important implications for patient safety and the cost effectiveness of risk management operations. This paper describes a before and after pilot study of the Generating Options for Active Risk Control (GO-ARC) technique, a novel tool to improve the quality of the risk control options generation process. OUTCOME MEASURES: The quantity, quality (using the three-tiered hierarchy of risk controls), variety, and novelty of risk controls generated. RESULTS: Use of the GO-ARC technique was associated with improvement on all measures. CONCLUSIONS: While this pilot study has some notable limitations, it appears that the GO-ARC technique improved the risk control options generation process. Further research is needed to confirm this finding. It is also important to note that improved risk control options are a necessary, but not sufficient, step toward the implementation of more robust risk controls.