Advertisement

Determining the Significance of Assessment Criteria for Risk Analysis in Business Associations

  • Omar Hussain
  • Khresna Bayu Sangka
  • Farookh Khadeer Hussain
Part of the Intelligent Systems Reference Library book series (ISRL, volume 33)

Abstract

Risk assessment in business associations is the process which determines the likelihood of negative outcomes according to a given set of desired criteria. When there is more than one desired criterion to be achieved in a business association, the process of risk assessment needs to be done by capturing the importance that each of the criteria will have on the successful completion of the business activity. In this paper, we present an approach that determines the significance of each criterion with respect to the goal of the business association and by considering the inter-dependencies that may exist between the different assessment criteria. This analysis will provide important insights during the process of risk management, where the occurrence of such negative outcomes can be managed, according to their significance, to ensure the successful completion of a business activity.

Keywords

Analytic Hierarchy Process Business Activity Assessment Criterion Successful Completion Analytic Network Process 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Joint Technical Committee OB-007 on Risk Management: AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management— Principles and Guidelines. In: Australia, S. (ed.): Sydney, p. 37 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bohnet, I., Zeckhauser, R.: Trust, risk and betrayal. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 55, 467–484 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hussain, O.K., Chang, E., Hussain, F.K., Dillon, T.S.: A methodology to quantify failure for risk-based decision support systems in digital business ecosystems. Data & Knowledge Engineering 63, 597–621 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hussain, O.K., Dillon, T., Hussain, F., Chang, E.: Probabilistic Assessment of Financial Risk in E-Business Association Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 19, 704–717 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hussain, O.K., Dillon, T.S., Hussain, F.K., Chang, E.: Transactional Risk-based Decision Making System in E-Business Computing. Computer Systems Science and Engineering 25, 15–25 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xiong, L., Liu, L.: Peertrust: Supporting Reputation-Based Trust for Peer-to-Peer Electronic Communities. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 16, 843–857 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gourlay, I., Djemame, K., Padgett, J.: Reliability and Risk in Grid Re-source Brokering. In: Second IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST 2008), pp. 437–443. IEEE, Phitsanulok (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Griffiths, N.: Enhancing peer-to-peer collaboration using trust. Expert Systems with Applications 31, 849–858 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Al-Bahar, J.F., Crandall, K.C.: Systematic Risk Management Approach for Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 116, 533–546 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fairley, R.: Risk management for software projects. IEEE Software 11, 57–67 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    University of Queensland: Occupational Health & Safety Risk Assessment and Management Guideline (2010), http://www.uq.edu.au/ohs/pdfs/ohsriskmgt.pdf
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Wang, Y., Wong, D.S., Lin, K.-J., Varadharajan, V.: Evaluating trans-action trust and risk levels in peer-to-peer e-commerce environments. Information Systems and E-Business Management 6, 25–48 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li, Y., Li, N.: Software Project Risk Assessment Based on Fuzzy Linguistic Multiple Attribute Decision Making. In: IEEE International Conference on Grey Systems and Intelligent Services, pp. 1163–1166. IEEE, China (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Altenbach, T.J.: A Comparison of Risk Assessment Techniques from Qualitative to Quantitative. In: Proceedings of the Joint ASMEIJSME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Honolulu, pp. 1–25 (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Network Process (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Searcy, D.L.: Aligning the Balanced Scorecard and a Firm’s Strategy Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Accounting Quarterly 5 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jovanovic, J., Krivokapic, Z.: AHP In Implementation Of Balanced Scorecard. International Journal for Quality Research 2 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu, H.-H., Shieh, J.-I., Li, Y., Chen, H.-K.: A Combination of AHP and DEMATEL in Evaluating the Criteria of Employment Service Outreach Pro-gram Personnel. Information Technology Journal 9, 569–575 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Duc, T.T.: Using GIS and AHP Technique for Land-use Suitability Analysis. In: International Symposium on Geoinformatics for Spatial Infrastructure Development in Earth and Allied Sciences (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yu, C.-S.: AGP-A HP method for solving group decision-making fuzzy AHP problems. Computers & Operations Research 29, 1969–2001 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chang, D.-Y.: Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 95, 649–655 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang, L., Zeng, Y.: The Risk Identification and Assessment in E-Business Development. In: Wang, L., Jin, Y. (eds.) FSKD 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3614, pp. 1142–1149. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saaty, T.L.: Time dependent decision-making; dynamic priorities in the AHP/ANP: Generalizing from points to functions and from real to complex variables. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46, 860–891 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saaty, T.L.: Multi-decisions decision-making: In addition to wheeling and deal-ing, our national political bodies need a formal approach for prioritization. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Omar Hussain
    • 1
  • Khresna Bayu Sangka
    • 1
  • Farookh Khadeer Hussain
    • 1
  1. 1.Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence InstituteCurtin University of TechnologyPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations