Improving Organizational Risk Management

  • Louis Anthony CoxJr.
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 185)


Chapters 1 and 2 emphasized technical methods−causal analysis and robust decision-making, respectively – that are especially useful for individual decision-makers. Chapter 3 explored challenges and opportunities for improving decision-making by treating communities, rather than individuals, as the natural units for decision-making. This chapter, by contrast, considers an intermediate level of decision-making entity: the organization, including business enterprises. Although it is a fascinating challenge to understand how businesses (and other organizations) interact with each other and the public within societies, communities, and institutional frameworks, adapting to each other and to their uncertain environments over time (Harford 2011), this chapter has a narrower, applied focus: understanding and improving how organizations describe and respond to the risks and threats that they perceive. It has become common practice for many organizations to explicitly identify, list, and make management priority decisions about different risks that they are aware of facing. These can be as diverse as risks of supply chain disruption, loss of reputation, failure of business continuity, legal liabilities, strikes, plant closures, and market and financial risks. This chapter critically examines how well such explicitly identified risks can be managed by the scoring, rating, and ranking systems now widely used in practice; and whether it is possible to make simple changes to improve the performance of these risk management systems.


Risk Reduction Risk Index Certainty Equivalent Superfund Site Priority Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Atkinson W (2003) Enterprise risk management at Walmart. Risk Manag.
  2. Bernstein PL (1998) Against the Gods: the remarkable story of risk. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Cox LA Jr (2008a) What’s wrong with risk matrices? Risk Anal 28(2):497–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cox LA Jr (2008b) Some limitations of “Risk  =  Threat  ×  Vulnerability  ×  Consequence” for risk analysis of terrorist attacks. Risk Anal 28(6):1749–1762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davies JC (1996) Comparing environmental risks: tools for setting government priorities. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Denardo EV, Rothblum UG, van der Heyden L (2004) Index policies for stochastic search in a forest with an application to R&D project management. Math Oper Res 29(1):162–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doctor JN, Bleichrodt H, Miyamoto J, Temkin NR, Dikmen S (2004) A new and more robust test of QALYs. J Health Econ 23(2):353–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dyer JS, Jia J (1998) Preference conditions for utility models: a risk-value perspective. Ann Oper Res 80(1):167–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dyer JS, Sarin RK (1979) Measurable multiattribute value functions. Oper Res 27(4):810–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EPA SAB (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board) (1990) Reducing risk: setting priorities and strategies for environmental protection. SAB-EC-90-021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC [online]. Available$File/REDUCING+RISK++++++++++EC-90-021_90021_5-11-1995_204.pdf. Accessed 14 Sept 12
  11. Gintis H, Bowles S, Boyd R, Fehr E (2003) Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evol Hum Behav 24:153–172 Gintis H (2000) Game Theory Evolving: A problem-centered introduction to modeling strategic interaction. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glazebrook KD, Minty R (2009) A generalized gittins index for a class of multiarmed Bandits with general resource requirements. Math Oper Res 34(1):26–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harford T (2011) Adapt: why success always starts with failure. Farra, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Hazen G, Sounderpandian J (1999) Lottery acquisition versus information acquisition: price and preference reversals. J Risk Uncertainty 18(2):125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hubbard DW (2009) The failure of risk management: why it’s broken and how to fix it. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Infanger G (2006) Dynamic asset allocation strategies using a stochastic dynamic programming approach. Chapter 5. In: Zenios SA, Ziemba WT (eds) Handbook of assets and liability management, volume 1. North Holland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones P, Edmonds Y (2008) Risk-based strategies for allocating resources in a constrained environment. J Homeland Security.
  18. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. MacIntyre CR, Seccull A, Lane JM (2006) Plant A. Development of a risk-priority score for category A bioterrorism agents as an aid for public health policy. Mil Med 171(7):589–594Google Scholar
  20. Martello S, Toth P (1990) Knapsack problems: algorithms and computer interpretations. ­Wiley-Interscience, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  21. Mitchell C, Decker C (2004) Applying risk-based decision-making methods and tools to U.S. Navy Antiterrorism Capabilities. J Homeland Security Accessed 14 Sept 12
  22. Pfanzagl J (1959) A general theory of measurement. Applications to utility. Naval Research Logistic Quarterly 6:283–294 Rosenthal EC (2011) The Complete idiot’s guide to game theory. The Penguin Group. Alpha Books, New York, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Senju S, Toyoda Y (1968) An approach to linear programming with 0–1 variables. Manag Sci 15(5):B-196–B-207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sethuraman J, Tsitsiklis J (2007) Stochastic search in a forest revisited. Math Oper Res 589–593.∼js1353/pubs/search.pdf
  25. Wilson R (1968) The theory of syndicates. Econometrica 336(1):119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Louis Anthony Cox, Jr 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louis Anthony CoxJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.Cox AssociatesDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations