Improving risk management: From lame excuses to principled practice

0Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Three classic pillars of risk analysis are risk assessment (how big is the risk and how sure can we be?), risk management (what shall we do about it?), and risk communication (what shall we say about it, to whom, when and how?). Chapter 1 proposed two complements to these: risk attribution (who or what addressable conditions actually caused an accident or loss?) and learning from experience about risk reduction (what works, how well, and how sure can we be?) Failures in complex systems usually evoke blame, often with insufficient attention to root causes of failure, including some aspects of the situation, design decisions, or social norms and culture. Focusing on blame, however, can inhibit effective learning, instead eliciting excuses to deflect attention and perceived culpability. Productive understanding of what went wrong, and how to do better, thus requires moving past recrimination and excuses.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cox, L. A., Popken, D. A., & Sun, R. X. (2018). Improving risk management: From lame excuses to principled practice. In International Series in Operations Research and Management Science (Vol. 270, pp. 493–511). Springer New York LLC. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78242-3_13

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free