IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aes/amfeco/v22y2020i55p824.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Risk Management Maturity in the Czech Automotive Industry: Model and Methodology

Author

Listed:
  • Marek Cech

    (University of West Bohemia, Pilsen, Czech Republic)

  • Martin Januska

    (University of West Bohemia, Pilsen, Czech Republic)

Abstract

This article provides a review of currently used risk maturity models to provide an overview of the assessment and diagnostics of risk management maturity in companies. The main research goal is to develop an entry-level easy-to-use diagnostic tool for enterprise-wide risk management maturity assessment tailored to Tier I suppliers of the automotive industry. In the first step, the questionnaire for self-evaluation was prepared with the help of a panel of experts using a synthesis of existing models suitable for use in the automotive industry. The risk maturity assessment model is then prepared using the Delphi method and the Likert scale for multi-criteria evaluation since the experts insisted on setting different weights for each criterion. Based on the results presented in the paper, a risk maturity self-evaluation tool in the form of a questionnaire was created for companies. Findings: The initial purpose of the research was to provide a review of the currently used risk maturity models, which led us to find more than 77 maturity models. The origin of risk maturity models can be credited to Hillson (1997) who built the first risk maturity model based on the capability maturity model from the IT sector. A significant research effort was put into the observation of hard and soft benefits of risk management. Based on the analysis of carefully chosen models, the new model was synthesized. The proposed model uses a self-evaluating easy-to-use questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of 24 attributes divided into 5 modules that were evaluated based on the 25 questions. All attributes were assessed on a 10-point Likert scale using the Delphi method conducted with the panel of experts. The outcome and purpose of the model is an entry-level diagnostics questionnaire of company risk management maturity tailored for Tier I suppliers of the automotive industry. Originality/value: As risk management is complex, maturity models provide companies with the ability to assess their situation and set strategic goals in the field of risk management. Tailoring a risk maturity model for the needs of the specific organization or industry sector has been recommended by researchers and industry practitioners in risk management (Antonucci, 2016; Kaplan and Mikes, 2016; Marks, 2015; MARSH, 2018; McKay, 2017).

Suggested Citation

  • Marek Cech & Martin Januska, 2020. "Evaluation of Risk Management Maturity in the Czech Automotive Industry: Model and Methodology," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 22(55), pages 824-824, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:aes:amfeco:v:22:y:2020:i:55:p:824
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro/temp/Article_2934.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guy Moors, 2008. "Exploring the effect of a middle response category on response style in attitude measurement," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 42(6), pages 779-794, December.
    2. Matthew Adler, "undated". "Against 'Individual Risk': A Sympathetic Critique of Risk Assessment," Scholarship at Penn Law upenn_wps-1013, University of Pennsylvania Law School.
    3. Georges Dionne, 2013. "Risk Management: History, Definition, and Critique," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 16(2), pages 147-166, September.
    4. Borut Jereb, 2013. "Risk Assessment Model Respecting Segments Of The Public," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 9(3), pages 75-94.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Oliva, Fábio Lotti, 2016. "A maturity model for enterprise risk management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 66-79.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cristian DÎRVĂ & Anda Simona DÎRVĂ, 2019. "“Managing Risks” versus “Taking Risks”: Revisiting an Underestimated Distinction between Managers and Entrepreneurs," Eastern European Journal for Regional Studies (EEJRS), Center for Studies in European Integration (CSEI), Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova (ASEM), vol. 5(1), pages 112-124, June.
    2. Sergio Edwin Torrico Salamanca, 2014. "Macro credit scoring as a proposal for quantifying credit risk," Investigación & Desarrollo, Universidad Privada Boliviana, vol. 2(1), pages 42-64.
    3. Cheng, Teng Yuan & Lee, Chun I. & Lin, Chao Hsien, 2020. "The effect of risk-taking behavior on profitability: Evidence from futures market," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 19-38.
    4. Seow Eng Ong & Davin Wang & Calvin Chua, 2023. "Disruptive Innovation and Real Estate Agency: The Disruptee Strikes Back," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 287-317, August.
    5. Bradley, Ian, 2003. "The representative bettor, bet size, and prospect theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 409-413, March.
    6. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    7. Xu, Hedong & Tian, Cunzhi & Ye, Wenxing & Fan, Suohai, 2018. "Effects of investors’ power correlations in the power-based game on networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 506(C), pages 424-432.
    8. Christiane Goodfellow & Dirk Schiereck & Steffen Wippler, 2013. "Are behavioural finance equity funds a superior investment? A note on fund performance and market efficiency," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(2), pages 111-119, April.
    9. Gric, Zuzana & Ehrenbergerova, Dominika & Hodula, Martin, 2022. "The power of sentiment: Irrational beliefs of households and consumer loan dynamics," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    10. Rachel Baker, 2018. "Understanding College Students’ Major Choices Using Social Network Analysis," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 59(2), pages 198-225, March.
    11. Stillwagon, Josh R., 2015. "Testing the expectations hypothesis with survey forecasts: The impacts of consumer sentiment and the zero lower bound in an I(2) CVAR," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 85-101.
    12. Kerstin Bruckmeier & Georg-Benedikt Fischer & Berthold U. Wigger, 2014. "The Downside Risk of Elevation," CESifo Working Paper Series 4950, CESifo.
    13. Xu, Shen & Yin, Bichao & Lou, Chunjie, 2022. "Minority shareholder activism and corporate social responsibility," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    14. Berg, Joyce E. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2019. "Longshots, overconfidence and efficiency on the Iowa Electronic Market," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 271-287.
    15. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Gutierrez, Roman J., 2007. "Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 96-112, September.
    16. Sujoy Chakravarty & Jaideep Roy, 2009. "Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 199-228, March.
    17. Earl, Peter E., 2015. "Anchoring in economics: On Frey and Gallus on the aggregation of behavioural anomalies," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 9, pages 1-25.
    18. Reckers, Philip M.J. & Sanders, Debra L. & Roark, Stephen J., 1994. "The Influence of Ethical Attitudes on Taxpayer Compliance," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 47(4), pages 825-836, December.
    19. Haim Levy & Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thorsten Hens, 2012. "Two Paradigms and Nobel Prizes in Economics: a Contradiction or Coexistence?," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 18(2), pages 163-182, March.
    20. Bomin Jiang & Daniel Rigobon & Roberto Rigobon, 2022. "From Just-in-Time, to Just-in-Case, to Just-in-Worst-Case: Simple Models of a Global Supply Chain under Uncertain Aggregate Shocks," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 70(1), pages 141-184, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    risk management maturity model; risk management; maturity model; project risk management;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aes:amfeco:v:22:y:2020:i:55:p:824. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Valentin Dumitru (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aseeero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.