The board of directors, executives and risk knowledge management

Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) and Knowledge Management (KM) both encompass top-down and bottom-up approaches developing and embedding risk knowledge concepts and processes in strategy, policies, risk appetite definition, the decision-making process and business processes. The capacity to transfer risk knowledge affects all stakeholders and understanding of the risk knowledge about the enterprise's value is a key requirement in order to identify protection strategies for business sustainability. There are various factors that affect this capacity for transferring and understanding. Previous work has established that there is a difference between the influence of KM variables on Risk Control and on the perceived value of ERM. Communication among groups appears as a significant variable in improving Risk Control but only as a weak factor in improving the perceived value of ERM. However, the ERM mandate requires for its implementation a clear understanding, of risk management (RM) policies, actions and results, and the use of the integral view of RM as a governance and compliance program to support the value driven management of the organization. Furthermore, ERM implementation demands better capabilities for unification of the criteria of risk analysis, alignment of policies and protection guidelines across the organization. These capabilities can be affected by risk knowledge sharing between the RM group and the Board of Directors and other executives in the organization. This research presents an exploratory analysis of risk knowledge transfer variables used in risk management practice. A survey to risk management executives from 65 firms in various industries was undertaken and 108 answers were analyzed. Potential relationships among the variables are investigated using descriptive statistics and multivariate statistical models. The level of understanding of risk management policies and reports by the board is related to the quality of the flow of communication in the firm and perceived level of integration of the risk policy in the business processes.

Orbit and altimetric corrections for the ERS satellites through analysis of single and dual satellite crossovers

Due to the failure of PRARE the orbital accuracy of ERS-1 is typically 10-15 cm radially as compared to 3-4cm for TOPEX/Poseidon. To gain the most from these simultaneous datasets it is necessary to improve the orbital accuracy of ERS-1 so that it is commensurate with that of TOPEX/Poseidon. For the integration of these two datasets it is also necessary to determine the altimeter and sea state biases for each of the satellites. Several models for the sea state bias of ERS-1 are considered by analysis of the ERS-1 single satellite crossovers. The model adopted consists of the sea state bias as a percentage of the significant wave height, namely 5.95%. The removal of ERS-1 orbit error and recovery of an ERS-1 - TOPEX/Poseidon relative bias are both achieved by analysis of dual crossover residuals. The gravitational field based radial orbit error is modelled by a finite Fourier expansion series with the dominant frequencies determined by analysis of the JGM-2 co-variance matrix. Periodic and secular terms to model the errors due to atmospheric density, solar radiation pressure and initial state vector mis-modelling are also solved for. Validation of the dataset unification consists of comparing the mean sea surface topographies and annual variabilities derived from both the corrected and uncorrected ERS-1 orbits with those derived from TOPEX/Poseidon. The global and regional geographically fixed/variable orbit errors are also analysed pre and post correction, and a significant reduction is noted. Finally the use of dual/single satellite crossovers and repeat pass data, for the calibration of ERS-2 with respect to ERS-1 and TOPEX/Poseidon is shown by calculating the ERS-1/2 sea state and relative biases.