IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v32y2012i7p1244-1252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating and Improving Risk Formulas for Allocating Limited Budgets to Expensive Risk‐Reduction Opportunities

Author

Listed:
  • Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr.

Abstract

Simple risk formulas, such as risk = probability × impact, or risk = exposure × probability × consequence, or risk = threat × vulnerability × consequence, are built into many commercial risk management software products deployed in public and private organizations. These formulas, which we call risk indices, together with risk matrices, “heat maps,” and other displays based on them, are widely used in applications such as enterprise risk management (ERM), terrorism risk analysis, and occupational safety. But, how well do they serve to guide allocation of limited risk management resources? This article evaluates and compares different risk indices under simplifying conditions favorable to their use (statistically independent, uniformly distributed values of their components; and noninteracting risk‐reduction opportunities). Compared to an optimal (nonindex) approach, simple indices produce inferior resource allocations that for a given cost may reduce risk by as little as 60% of what the optimal decisions would provide, at least in our simple simulations. This article suggests a better risk reduction per unit cost index that achieves 98–100% of the maximum possible risk reduction on these problems for all budget levels except the smallest, which allow very few risks to be addressed. Substantial gains in risk reduction achieved for resources spent can be obtained on our test problems by using this improved index instead of simpler ones that focus only on relative sizes of risk (or of components of risk) in informing risk management priorities and allocating limited risk management resources. This work suggests the need for risk management tools to explicitly consider costs in prioritization activities, particularly in situations where budget restrictions make careful allocation of resources essential for achieving close‐to‐maximum risk‐reduction benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr., 2012. "Evaluating and Improving Risk Formulas for Allocating Limited Budgets to Expensive Risk‐Reduction Opportunities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(7), pages 1244-1252, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:7:p:1244-1252
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01735.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01735.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01735.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. K. D. Glazebrook & R. Minty, 2009. "A Generalized Gittins Index for a Class of Multiarmed Bandits with General Resource Requirements," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 26-44, February.
    2. Jay Sethuraman & John N. Tsitsiklis, 2007. "Stochastic Search in a Forest Revisited," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 589-593, August.
    3. Louis Anthony (Tony)Cox, 2008. "What's Wrong with Risk Matrices?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 497-512, April.
    4. Shizuo Senju & Yoshiaki Toyoda, 1968. "An Approach to Linear Programming with 0-1 Variables," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 196-207, December.
    5. Eric V. Denardo & Uriel G. Rothblum & Ludo Van der Heyden, 2004. "Index Policies for Stochastic Search in a Forest with an Application to R&D Project Management," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 162-181, February.
    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. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr, 2008. "Some Limitations of “Risk = Threat × Vulnerability × Consequence” for Risk Analysis of Terrorist Attacks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1749-1761, December.
    2. Hanafi, Said & Freville, Arnaud, 1998. "An efficient tabu search approach for the 0-1 multidimensional knapsack problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(2-3), pages 659-675, April.
    3. Sonin, Isaac M., 2008. "A generalized Gittins index for a Markov chain and its recursive calculation," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(12), pages 1526-1533, September.
    4. Slotnick, Susan A., 2011. "Order acceptance and scheduling: A taxonomy and review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 1-11, July.
    5. Matteo Fischetti & Ivana Ljubić & Michele Monaci & Markus Sinnl, 2019. "Interdiction Games and Monotonicity, with Application to Knapsack Problems," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 390-410, April.
    6. David J. Ball & Laurence Ball‐King, 2013. "Safety Management and Public Spaces: Restoring Balance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 763-771, May.
    7. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    8. Lin, Feng-Tse & Yao, Jing-Shing, 2001. "Using fuzzy numbers in knapsack problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 158-176, November.
    9. Luca Allodi & Fabio Massacci, 2017. "Security Events and Vulnerability Data for Cybersecurity Risk Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1606-1627, August.
    10. Jakob Puchinger & Günther R. Raidl & Ulrich Pferschy, 2010. "The Multidimensional Knapsack Problem: Structure and Algorithms," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 250-265, May.
    11. Stephanie E. Chang & Timothy McDaniels & Jana Fox & Rajan Dhariwal & Holly Longstaff, 2014. "Toward Disaster‐Resilient Cities: Characterizing Resilience of Infrastructure Systems with Expert Judgments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(3), pages 416-434, March.
    12. E. S. Levine & Julie F. Waters, 2013. "Managing Risk at the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(7), pages 1281-1292, July.
    13. Edward Y H Lin & Chung-Min Wu, 2004. "The multiple-choice multi-period knapsack problem," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(2), pages 187-197, February.
    14. Eduardo S. Ayra & David Ríos Insua & María Eugenia Castellanos & Lydia Larbi, 2015. "Risk Analysis for Unintentional Slide Deployment During Airline Operations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(9), pages 1652-1662, September.
    15. Johnson Holt & Adrian W. Leach & Gritta Schrader & Françoise Petter & Alan MacLeod & Dirk Jan van der Gaag & Richard H. A. Baker & John D. Mumford, 2014. "Eliciting and Combining Decision Criteria Using a Limited Palette of Utility Functions and Uncertainty Distributions: Illustrated by Application to Pest Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 4-16, January.
    16. Cemal AKTÜRK & Sevinç GÜLSEÇEN, 2018. "Sipariş Teslim Tarihi Problemi İçin Çok Kriterli ve Çok Yöntemli Karar Destek Sistemi Önerisi," Istanbul Management Journal, Istanbul University Business School, vol. 29(84), pages 65-78, June.
    17. Karar, Ahmed Noaman & Labib, Ashraf & Jones, Dylan, 2024. "A resilience-based maintenance optimisation framework using multiple criteria and Knapsack methods," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    18. Wei, Lu & Jing, Haozhe & Huang, Jie & Deng, Yuqi & Jing, Zhongbo, 2023. "Do textual risk disclosures reveal corporate risk? Evidence from U.S. fintech corporations," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    19. Oliver Bastert & Benjamin Hummel & Sven de Vries, 2010. "A Generalized Wedelin Heuristic for Integer Programming," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 93-107, February.
    20. Michael R. Powers & Thomas Y. Powers & Siwei Gao, 2012. "Risk Finance for Catastrophe Losses with Pareto‐Calibrated Lévy‐Stable Severities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(11), pages 1967-1977, November.

    More about this item

    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:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:7:p:1244-1252. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.