Transactional Risk Analysis in Business Activities

  • Omar K. Hussain
  • Tharam S. Dillon
  • Farookh K. Hussain
  • Elizabeth J. Chang
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 412)


A substantial body of literature, based on rational economics, argues that the decision to buy is based on risk-adjusted cost-benefit analysis [1]. So as mentioned in the last chapter, transactional risk is one of the important factors in business decision-making. Furthermore, the importance of transactional risk is not just limited to business interactions, but is evident in almost all activities conducted in the world today, regardless of the domain, including areas such as health, mining, safety, air travel, planning and infrastructure etc. But regardless of its importance, it is incorrect to think that the term transactional risk can be defined globally or in a generic way, which can then be applied to any discipline of discussion. As seen from the discussion in Section 1.2, even though the broad meaning across domains may be the same, the specific objects of analysis and output concepts represented by the term transactional risk vary across disciplines. This means that the definition of transactional risk in one discipline may not be suitable for other disciplines, as their object of analysis might vary with the change of discipline, thereby changing its interpretation and the sub-categories of its analysis. Sub-categories of analysis are those specific factors by which transactional risk is determined and expressed in that domain.


Risk Management Business Activity Interact User Financial Risk Successful Completion 
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.
    Sander Greenland: Bounding Analysis as an Inadequately Specified Methodology. Risk Analysis 24, 1071–1083 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gran, B.A., Fredriksen, R., Thunem, A.P.-J.: An Approach for Model-Based Risk Assessment. In: Heisel, M., Liggesmeyer, P., Wittmann, S. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3219, pp. 311–324. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Griffiths, N.: Task Delegation using Experience Based MultiDimensional Trust. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2005), pp. 489–496. ACM Press, Utrecht (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Corbitt, B.J., Thanasankit, T., Yi, H.: Trust and e-commerce: a study of consumer perceptions. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 2, 203–215 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wojcik, M., Eloff, J.H.P., Venter, H. S.: Trust Model Architecture: Defining Prejudice by Learning. In: Fischer-Hübner, S., Furnell, S., Lambrinoudakis, C. (eds.) TrustBus 2006. LNCS, vol. 4083, pp. 182–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xu, J., Liu, Z., Li, Y.: Integrating Processes of Logistics Outsourcing Risk Management in e-Business. In: IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 544–547. IEEE, Hong Kong (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Trust Is Much More than Subjective Probability: Mental Components and Sources of Trust. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1–10. IEEE Computer Society, Hawaii (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cvrček, D., Moody, K.: Combining Trust and Risk to Reduce the Cost of Attacks. In: Herrmann, P., Issarny, V., Shiu, S.C.K. (eds.) iTrust 2005. LNCS, vol. 3477, pp. 372–383. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bohnet, I., Zeckhauser, R.: Trust, risk and betrayal. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 55, 467–484 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xie, G., Zhang, J.-L., Lai, K.K.: Web-Based Risk Avoidance Group Decision Support System in Software Project Bidding. In: International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 180–183. IEEE, Hong Kong (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    English, C., Wagealla, W., Nixon, P., Terzis, S., Lowe, H., McGettrick, A.: Trusting Collaboration in Global Computing Systems. In: Nixon, P., Terzis, S. (eds.) iTrust 2003. LNCS, vol. 2692, pp. 136–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Su, C., Zhang, H., Bi, F.-M.: P2P-based Trust Model for E-Commerce. In: IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE 2006), pp. 118–122. IEEE Computer Society, Shanghai (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin, C., Varadharajan, V.: Trust Based Risk Management for Distributed System Security - A New Approach. In: The First International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES 2006), pp. 6–13. IEEE Computer Society, Vienna (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lam, Y.-H., Zhang, Z., Ong, K.-L.: Trading in Open Marketplace Using Trust and Risk. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT 2005), pp. 471–474. IEEE, Compiegne (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deriaz, M.: Trust without Truth. In: Etallc, S., Marsh, S. (eds.) Trust Management. IFIP AICT, vol. 238, pp. 31–45. Springer, Boston (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh, A., Liu, L.: TrustMe: Anonymous Management of Trust Relationships in Decentralized P2P Systems. In: Third International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing, pp. 142–149. IEEE Computer Society, Linköping (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Asnar, Y., Giorgini, P., Mulyanto, A.: Risk in Secure and Dependable System: a Survey. In: Proceeding of 1st International Conference and Workshop on Risk Technology and Management, Bandung, Indonesia, pp. 1–12 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dimmock, N., Belokosztolszki, A., Eyers, D., Bacon, J., Moody, K.: Using trust and risk in role-based access control policies. In: Ninth ACM Symposium on Access control Models and Technologies, New York, pp. 156–162 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wawrzyniak, D.: Information Security Risk Assessment Model for Risk Management. In: Fischer-Hübner, S., Furnell, S., Lambrinoudakis, C. (eds.) TrustBus 2006. LNCS, vol. 4083, pp. 21–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xiong, L., Liu, L.: A Reputation-Based Trust Model for Peer-to-Peer eCommerce Communities. In: IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce, California, USA, pp. 275–284 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang, Y., Wong, D.S., Lin, K.-J., Varadharajan, V.: Evaluating transaction trust and risk levels in peer-to-peer e-commerce environments. Information Systems and E-Business Management 6, 25–48 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jøsang, A., Presti, S.L.: Analysing the Relationship between Risk and Trust. In: Jensen, C., Poslad, S., Dimitrakos, T. (eds.) iTrust 2004. LNCS, vol. 2995, pp. 135–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    English, C., Terzis, S., Wagealla, W.: Engineering Trust Based Collaborations in a Global Computing Environment. In: Jensen, C., Poslad, S., Dimitrakos, T. (eds.) iTrust 2004. LNCS, vol. 2995, pp. 120–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Standards Australia: AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management - Principles and guidelines. In: Standards Australia (ed.), pp. 1–29 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Omar K. Hussain
    • 1
  • Tharam S. Dillon
    • 2
  • Farookh K. Hussain
    • 3
  • Elizabeth J. Chang
    • 1
  1. 1.Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence InstituteCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Computer EngineeringLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.School of SoftwareUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations