Advertisement

Risk Analysis of a Scientific Conference Organization: A Brazilian Case

  • Roberto Miguel Fuentes RiveraEmail author
  • Jakeline Tomé da Silva
  • Milton Vieira Júnior
  • Fernando Tobal Berssaneti
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 281)

Abstract

Studies based on Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) technique has been considered as an effective method for risk management analysis. As a simple useful tool for preventing failures before they occur, this paper aims to contribute in increasing the quality planning of scientific conferences, evaluating interconnected stages designed to provide an adequate structure for the execution of such events. For this study, FMEA was applied based on literature review and the information provided by the organizing committee of the largest Brazilian production engineering conference. Considering the Risk Priority Number (RPN) resulting from this research, this case study shows the activities that might be considered as higher risk during scientific conferences, and what preventive action should be taken to avoid them or mitigating their consequences.

Keywords

Scientific conferences Events management Risk management FMEA 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Brazilian Conference of Production Engineering (ENEGEP); University Nove de Julho; and CAPES for the financial support for this research.

References

  1. 1.
    Zierath, J.R.: Building bridges through scientific conferences. Cell 167, 1155–1158 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    King, L.: Helping early career research scientists ascend the professional ladder. Trends Biochem. Sci. 38(8), 373–375 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cesca, C.G.: Organização de eventos, 9th edn. Summus, São Paulo (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ilvonen, I., Thalmann, S., Manhart, M., Sillaber, C.: Reconciling digital transformation and knowledge protection: a research agenda. Knowl. Manage. Res. Pract. 16(2), 235–244 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shahin, A.: Integration of FMEA and the Kano model: an exploratory examination. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage. 21, 731–746 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Project Management Institute (PMI): A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 5th edn. Pennsylvania (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Asiyai, R.I.: Improving quality higher education in Nigeria: the roles of stakeholders. Int. J. High. Educ. 4(1), 61–70 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freeman, R.G.: A stakeholder theory of modern corporations. In: Ethical Theory and Business. Boston MA: Pitman (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedman, A.L., Miles, S.: Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO 31000 Homepage. https://www.iso.org/iso-31000-risk-management.html. Accessed 14 Mar 2018
  11. 11.
    Schwartz, S., Yaffe, J., Goldblatt, J., Silvers, J.R.: Risk management: financial, legal and ethical safeguards. In: The George Washington University Workbook, vol. 28. Washington: School of Business and Public Management (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huth, M., Lohre, D.: Risk management in logistics enterprises: findings from the 2013 empirical study. Logist. Transp. 22(2), 5–12 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andersen, T.J.: Effective risk management outcomes: exploring effects of innovation and capital structure. J. Strat. Manage. 2(4), 352–379 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    IBGC Homepage. http://www.ibgc.org.br/. Accessed 13 Mar 2018
  15. 15.
    Gutierrez, W.: Relações Públicas, processo, funções, tecnologia e estratégias, 2nd edn. Summus, São Paulo (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lukaszewski, J.E.: How vulnerable are you? The lessons from Valdez. Publ. Relat. Quart. Rhinebeck 34(3), 5 (1989)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greenall, J., Walsh, D., Wichman, K.: Failure mode and effects analysis: a tool for identifying risk in community pharmacies. Can. Pharm. J. 140, 191, 193 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McDemortt, R.E., Mikulak, R.J., Beauregard, M.R.: The Basics of FMEA, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis Group, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ookalkar, A.D., Joshi, A.G., Ookalkar, D.S.: Quality improvement in haemodialysis process using FMEA. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage. 26, 817, 830 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lichtenthaler, U.: Shared value innovation: linking competitiveness and societal goals in the context of digital transformation. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manage. 14(4), 1750018 (14 pages) (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chang, D.S., Sun, K.L.P.: Applying DEA to enhance assessment capability of FMEA. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage. 26(6), 629–643 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stamatis, D.H.: Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution. Wisc ASQC Quality Press, New York, Milwaukee (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bahrami, M., Bazzaz, D., Sajjadi, M.: Innovation and improvements in project implementation and management; using FMEA technique. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 41, 418–425 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rhee, S.J., Ishii, K.: Using cost based FMEA to enhance reliability and serviceability. Adv. Eng. Inform. 17, 179–188 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ghasemi, S., Mahmoudvand, R., Yavari, K.: Application of the FMEA in insurance of high-risk industries: a case study of Iran’s gas refineris. Stoch. Env. Res. Risk Assess. 30, 737–745 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mendes, M.E., Ebner, P., Romano, P., Neto, M., Sant’ana, A., Sumita, N.: Practical aspects of the use of FMEA tool in clinical laboratory risk management. Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial 49(3), 174–181 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Silva, M.M., Gusmão, A.P., Poleto, T., Silva, L., Costa, A.P.: A multidimensional approach to information security risk management using FMEA and fuzzy theory. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 34, 733–740 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Franceschini, F., Galetto, M.: A new approach for evaluation of risk priorities of failure modes in FMEA. Int. J. Prod. Res. 39(13), 2991–3002 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maddoxx, M.E.: Error apparent. Industr. Eng. 37(5), 40–44 (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cody, R.J.: Anticipating risk for human subjects participating in clinia research: application of failure mode an effects analysis. Cancer Invest. 24, 209–214 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Leedy, P., Ormrod, J.: Practical Research: Planning and Design, 7th edn. Prentice Hall, NJ (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Williams, C.: Research methods. J. Bus. Econ. Res. 5(3), 65–71 (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th edn. SAGE Publications, Inc (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    ENEGEP Homepage. https://www.abepro.org.br/enegep/. Accessed 14 Mar 2018
  35. 35.
    Feili, H.R., Akar, N., Lotfizadeh, H., Bairampour, M., Nasiri, S.: Risk analysis of geothermal power plants using failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) technique. Energy Convers. Manag. 72, 69–76 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Miguel Fuentes Rivera
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jakeline Tomé da Silva
    • 2
  • Milton Vieira Júnior
    • 3
  • Fernando Tobal Berssaneti
    • 4
  1. 1.Post Graduation Program – University Nove de Julho (UNINOVE)São PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Federal University of Goiás (UFG – Catalão)CatalãoBrazil
  3. 3.Post Graduation Program, Methodist University of Piracicaba (UNIMEP)São PauloBrazil
  4. 4.Department of Production Engineering, University of São Paulo (USP), Polytechnic SchoolSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations