BT Technology Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 168–177 | Cite as

Operational risk analysis in business processes

  • A. K. Jallow
  • B. Majeed
  • K. Vergidis
  • A. Tiwari
  • R. Roy


The operational continuity of a business process is an important performance indicator that contributes to the perceived quality of service delivery, hence it is important to understand and monitor the underlying issues that can affect the performance of the process. These issues might have been foreseen at the beginning of the process design and deployment phase, or might have emerged during the execution of the process, and must be viewed as risk threats to the business process. In most cases risk is only considered from the project management angle or from financial, market, insurance and other general business perspective. Operational risk at service provision level receives little attention and thus there is a need to develop methodologies and tools to identify and analyse business operational risks. The authors concentrate on operational risk for business process management by introducing a novel way for applying risk assessment frameworks at the process activity level. The paper briefly reviews existing risk frameworks and selects the COSO framework as the most appropriate for business processes. This framework is modified in order to address and evaluate the main elements of business processes. It defines a statistical approach towards operational risk assessment by quantifying risk factors in each activity within a business process for service provision. A risk forecast is produced for each activity, and for the whole process, to model associated uncertainties and to contribute in identifying the risk factors that affect the business process objectives. To demonstrate the framework, it is applied to a hypothetical process involving setting up a network service. These results help to advise on which risk factors need higher attention in order to achieve successful process fulfilment.


Business Process Risk Analysis Operational Risk Latin Hypercube Sampling Business Process Management 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Archer D: ’Creating a Risk Management Framework. CMA Management,’ 76, No 1, pp 16–19 (2002).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Knight F H: ’Risk uncertainty and profit’, Houghton Mifflin (1921).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frost C, Allen D, Porter J and Bloodworth P: ’Operational risk and resilience: understanding and minimizing operational risk to secure shareholder value’, Price Water House Coopers (2001).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bell T, Marrs F, Solomon I and Thomas H: ’Auditing organizations through a strategic-systems lens: the KPMG Business Measurement Process’, KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP (1997).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gemmer A: ’Risk Management: Moving Beyond Process’, Computer, 30, No 5, pp 33–43 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Link P and Marxt C: ’Integration of risk-and chance management in the co-operation process’, International Journal of Production Economics, 90, pp 71–78 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jaafari A: ’Management of Risks, Uncertainties and Opportunities on Projects: Time for a Fundamental Shift’, International Journal of Project Management, 19, pp 89–101 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Basel Committee: ’Sound Practices for the Management and Supervision of Operational Risk’, Bank for International Settlements, Basel, Switzerland (2003).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crouhy M, Galai D and Mark R: ’Operational risk: Viewpoints of depositors and shareholders’, Journal of Derivatives, 12, pp 51–55 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haimes Y Y: ’Risk Analysis, Systems Analysis and Covey’s even Habits’, Society for Risk Analysis, 21, pp 217–224 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Suh B and Han I: ’The IS risk analysis based on a business model’, Journal of Information and Management, 41, pp 149–158 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kendrick T: ’Identifying and Managing Project Risk: Essential Tools for Failure-Proofing Your Project’, Amacom (2003).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henrion M and Morgan M G: ’A Computer Aid for Policy and Risk Analysis’, Risk Analysis, 5, No 3, pp 195–208 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raz T and Michael E: ’Benchmarking the Use of Project Risk Management Tools’, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Project Management Institute, Seminars and Symposium (1999).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duncan R A: ’Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge’, Project Management Institute (1996).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    COSO: ’Enterprise Risk Management — Integrated Framework. Executive Summary, 16’, Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Threadway Commission (2004).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dorofee A J, Walker A. J, Alberts C J, Higuera R P, Murphy R L and Ray C W: ’Continuous Risk Management Guidebook’, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (1996).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fairly R: ’Risk Management for Software Projects’, IEEE Software (1994).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    NASA: ’Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners’, Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, Version 1.1 (2002).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kliem R L: ’Risk Management for Business Process Reengineering Projects’, Information Systems Management, 17, pp 71–73 (2000).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhou Y and Chen Y: ’Project-Oriented Business Process Performance Optimization’, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 5, pp 4079–4084 (2003).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McKay M D, Backman R J and Conover W J: ’A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code’, Technometrics, 21, No 2, pp 239–245 (1979).zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pebesma E J and Heuvelink G B M: ’Latin Hypercube Sampling of Gaussian Random Fields. Technometrics’, 41, No 4, pp 303–312 (1999).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. K. Jallow
  • B. Majeed
  • K. Vergidis
  • A. Tiwari
  • R. Roy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations