IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v8y2018i2p22-d152956.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and Introduction of the Risk-Sentience Auxiliary Framework (RSAF) as an Enabler to the ISO 31000 and ISO 31010 for High-Risk Environments

Author

Listed:
  • Jerry Selvaseelan

    (Risk and Quality Advisor, Health Service Executive (HSE), Community Healthcare—Dublin South, Kildare & West Wicklow, Kildare W91KDC2, Ireland)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to develop, implement, and evaluate a new auxiliary enterprise risk management framework and process to serve as an enabler to the global ISO 31000 risk framework and ISO 31010 processes. This framework has been designed particularly for use within high-risk environments and those characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA). This paper proposes a methodology for optimization of structured sharing and grass-roots management of all available risk-sentience information with the assessed potential to develop into an identifiable risk in the future. The author introduces new risk terminology including risk-sentience, risk-sentience information, and risk-sentience management. The process involved the development of the Theory of Risk-Sentience (ToRS), Risk-Sentience Auxiliary Framework (RSAF) and a risk-sentience management process referred to as LUOMEAR (Learning from Uncertainties, Others Mistakes, Experiences and Anecdotal Reporting). Manchester Patient Safety Framework (MaPSaF), SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis, and a newly developed Risk-Sentience Fertility Checklist were used to conduct pre and post-trial evaluations. The findings include positive adjustments in safety culture, components of commitment to quality, communication and team-working around safety issues, access to evolving risk-information, and efficient sharing and management of recorded risk-information. Recommendations are made for more extensive application of both the proposed auxiliary risk framework and process within high-risk sectors to further explore its effectiveness and scope.

Suggested Citation

  • Jerry Selvaseelan, 2018. "Development and Introduction of the Risk-Sentience Auxiliary Framework (RSAF) as an Enabler to the ISO 31000 and ISO 31010 for High-Risk Environments," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-22, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:8:y:2018:i:2:p:22-:d:152956
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/8/2/22/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/8/2/22/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grant Purdy, 2010. "ISO 31000:2009—Setting a New Standard for Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(6), pages 881-886, June.
    2. Bechara, Antoine & Damasio, Antonio R., 2005. "The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 336-372, August.
    3. Ole Jonny Klakegg, 2016. "Project Risk Management: Challenge Established Practice," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-3, December.
    4. Michael W. Slimak & Thomas Dietz, 2006. "Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1689-1705, December.
    5. Robert May, 2001. "Risk and uncertainty," Nature, Nature, vol. 411(6840), pages 891-891, June.
    6. Imran Shafique & Masood Nawaz Kalyar, 2018. "Linking Transformational Leadership, Absorptive Capacity, and Corporate Entrepreneurship," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-17, March.
    7. Heimir Thorisson & James H. Lambert & John J. Cardenas & Igor Linkov, 2017. "Resilience Analytics with Application to Power Grid of a Developing Region," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1268-1286, July.
    8. Aven, Terje, 2011. "On the new ISO guide on risk management terminology," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(7), pages 719-726.
    9. Babrow, Austin S. & Kline, Kimberly N., 2000. "From "reducing" to "coping with" uncertainty: reconceptualizing the central challenge in breast self-exams," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 51(12), pages 1805-1816, December.
    10. Wendy L. Nelson & Paul K. J. Han & Angela Fagerlin & Michael Stefanek & Peter A. Ubel, 2007. "Rethinking the Objectives of Decision Aids: A Call for Conceptual Clarity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 609-618, September.
    11. Clare Chua Chow & Rakesh Sarin, 2002. "Known, Unknown, and Unknowable Uncertainties," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 127-138, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ivo Häring & Mirjam Fehling-Kaschek & Natalie Miller & Katja Faist & Sebastian Ganter & Kushal Srivastava & Aishvarya Kumar Jain & Georg Fischer & Kai Fischer & Jörg Finger & Alexander Stolz & Tobias , 2021. "A performance-based tabular approach for joint systematic improvement of risk control and resilience applied to telecommunication grid, gas network, and ultrasound localization system," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 286-329, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Muhammad Rafiq & Mir Kalan Shah, 2010. "The Value of Reduced Risk of Injury and Deaths in Pakistan—Using Actual and Perceived Risk Estimates," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 49(4), pages 823-837.
    2. Mehdi Khakpour & Jan Ketil Rød, 2016. "An attraction-based cellular automaton model for generating spatiotemporal population maps in urban areas," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 43(2), pages 297-319, March.
    3. Dow Alexander & Dow Sheila C., 2011. "Animal Spirits Revisited," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-25, December.
    4. Da Silva, Sergio, 2009. "Does Macroeconomics Need Microeconomic Foundations?," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 3, pages 1-11.
    5. Corgnet, Brice & Hernán-González, Roberto & Kujal, Praveen, 2020. "On booms that never bust: Ambiguity in experimental asset markets with bubbles," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    6. Lynsey Romo, 2014. "“These Aren’t Very Good Times”: Financial Uncertainty Experienced by Romantic Partners in the Wake of an Economic Downturn," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 477-488, December.
    7. Hamelin, Nicolas & Bonelli, Marco I., 2022. "Traders’ anticipatory feelings and traders’ profitability: An exploratory study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    8. Adam, Marc T.P. & Astor, Philipp J. & Krämer, Jan, 2016. "Affective Images, Emotion Regulation and Bidding Behavior: An Experiment on the Influence of Competition and Community Emotions in Internet Auctions," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 56-69.
    9. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    10. José Ruiz-Canela López, 2021. "How Can Enterprise Risk Management Help in Evaluating the Operational Risks for a Telecommunications Company?," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-26, March.
    11. Kyra L Wiggin & Martin Reimann & Shailendra P Jain & Darren W Dahl & Margaret C Campbell & Paul M Herr, 2019. "Curiosity Tempts Indulgence," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 45(6), pages 1194-1212.
    12. Rengifo, Erick W. & Trifan, Emanuela, 2007. "Investors Facing Risk: Loss Aversion and Wealth Allocation Between Risky and Risk-Free Assets," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 28063, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    13. Águeda Gil-López & Unai Arzubiaga & Elena San Román & Alfredo Massis, 2022. "The Visible Hand of corporate entrepreneurship in state-owned enterprises: a longitudinal study of the Spanish National Postal Operator," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 1033-1071, September.
    14. Timo Ehrig & Jaison Manjaly & Aditya Singh & Shyam Sunder, 2022. "Adaptive Rationality in Strategic Interaction: Do Emotions Regulate Thinking About Others?," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 330-349, December.
    15. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks: Evidence from a large representative survey," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12020, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    16. Hassler, Madison L. & Andrews, Daniel J. & Ezell, Barry C. & Polmateer, Thomas L. & Lambert, James H., 2020. "Multi-perspective scenario-based preferences in enterprise risk analysis of public safety wireless broadband network," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    17. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    18. Zeynep Altinay & Eric Rittmeyer & Lauren L. Morris & Margaret A. Reams, 2021. "Public risk salience of sea level rise in Louisiana, United States," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(4), pages 523-536, December.
    19. Xiaoge Zhang & Sankaran Mahadevan & Kai Goebel, 2019. "Network Reconfiguration for Increasing Transportation System Resilience Under Extreme Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(9), pages 2054-2075, September.
    20. Jack Stecher & Timothy Shields & John Dickhaut (deceased), 2011. "Generating Ambiguity in the Laboratory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(4), pages 705-712, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:8:y:2018:i:2:p:22-:d:152956. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.