Speaking from the perspective of a risk practitioner, I try not to compartmentalise risk too much as it could cause blindness to risks which might not fit into a pre-existing category.  The official risk guidance published is ISO31000 but it is non-prescriptive as to methodology. 

Blue sky thinking and brainstorming with others in an Action Research/Action Learning (Revans, Marquardt) methodology can help to open up the diversity of risks that need to be researched.  Once identified and understood, these risks can then be modelled against probability and impact using Monte Carlo.  Both phases of this analysis then need to be kept up to date on a regular basis as new information comes to light. 

This is a lot more methodical and quantifiably measured than the traditional risk matrix approach which does ten to compartmentalise the analysis. 

I attach some material including two of my own articles for your information. 

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso31000.htm

Article Prioritizing risks for the future using Monte Carlo simulati...

Article Monte Carlo or bust: a risk model using Monte Carlo simulati...

we are living in the dynamic world and global village. almost each market is linked with other one. every day new challenges emerge and companies need to face them and tackle them. Risk mangement is very core and basic issue which companies need to focus. By using risk managment, companies can minimise the systematic risk but cannot eliminate it. lot of research is conducting in this area by addressing modern risk issues in risk mangement. you caan find some good article in google scholar. But there is lot of risk handling techniques which company can use to address each specific risk type.

I see the substantial risk (in Italy it is turned into reality) of risk management turning into a mere administrative, bureaucratic exercise. Risk pervades every side of a company (it is always been so, today we have a different approach but not a "new" conscience of the risk matter); more conscience of Hayekian dispersion of knowledge vs current top-down approach would be useful.

I believe that awareness of the opportunities and the danger of risk has always been there. However, as a result of the global crisis, the managers have placed greater emphasis on risk, but certainly the risk is not a discovery today. But if we consider the behavior of top management toward risk, the discussion moves on the paradigm of the principal-agent relationship.

A new universal management system standard MSS 1000:2014 has just been published that addresses prospect and risk management at all levels of an organization and facilitates fully integrated management systems without boundaries.

Download a free copy now of MSS 1000:2014 (top of list) http://www.thecqi.org/Community/Special-Interest-Groups-SIGs/Integrated-Management-Group/Research-and-reports/

MSS 1000:2014 is a universal management system standard enabling organisations to create fully integrated management systems directing and guiding their total strategic, tactical and operational management processes. It avoids the need to comply with multiple management system standards covering separate aspects of performance such as goods and services quality, health and safety, environment and security. Commercial and human resource aspects are also covered that are not normally explicitly addressed in management system standards.

Options are provided to self and externally certify against the standard and achieve bronze, silver and gold award. It has an integral innovative scoring system that enables the organisation to gauge its progress against the standard and to conduct internal and external performance benchmarking.

MSS 1000:2014 contains nearly three hundred pages. However, the requirements for compliance are contained within the sixty pages occupied by its sections B and C, the rest of the document is supporting information and guidance.

The MSS was written by an international team of integrated management experts in order to:

a) Support the significant demand for integrated management systems which has grown since the turn of the millennium,

b) Demonstrate to doubters that a universal management system standard is possible and practicable,

c) Act as a robust foundation to stimulate further research, innovation and continual improvement in the practice of integrated management.

MSS 1000 transcends silos and fragmented management approaches allowing disparate disciplines to jointly own and cooperate in the creation of an integrated management system fully focused on optimally delivering the organisation’s purpose through its structures and processes rather than attempting to independently manage multiple dimensions of performance.

Implementing MSS 1000 will significantly improve:

• Stakeholder satisfaction while making the best use of resources,

• The effectiveness, efficiency and control of the organisation’s structures and processes,

• Prospect and risk management,

• Commercially responsible and socially responsible performance,

• The organisation’s robustness, agility and resilience.

The widespread adoption of this MSS can make a significant contribution to global economic, social and environmental performance and its sustainability. The publication of this standard is not intended to mark the end of a journey but to initiate a process of unifying management concepts, principles and practice. It invites individuals and organisations to participate in its improvement.

Anyone feeling motivated to tweet may like to include the hashtag #MSS1000

*TIP*

Use the Word version of MSS 1000. To aid navigation install a back arrow in the navigation bar as follows:

1) Select drop down menu at end of quick access toolbar.

2) Select ‘More Commands’.

3) On left at top, select ‘Commands not in Ribbon’.

4) Within list on left scroll down to ‘Back’ (back arrow icon) and select.

5) Click ‘Add’ in middle of screen (‘Back’ will then appear in right-hand list).

6) Use ‘up arrow’ on extreme right-hand side and repeatedly click until ‘Back is at the top of the list (this ensures that ‘Back’ will appear in top left-hand corner of toolbar when displayed).

7) Press OK.

I am afraid that little if anything has changed in risk modeling and the understanding of risk. One should first identify the nature of the system involved. There is no consesus on it, so naturally different approaches are proposed in which some proposals are evident flaws. I can supply loads of examples, how risk was understimated or completely ignored whereas the system revealed symptoms

of collosal changes ex ante, before the events took place. My contribution to this issue is based on the studies of chaotic systems. A lot of discourse takes place on the rigors fulfilled to declare a system is chaotic. Those familiar with the subject know that those rigors are not easily met or computed. Traditional approach through the Lyapunof exponent is not entirely wrong but inappropriate for large perturbations and there is a simpler and shorter way for declaring that the system is chaotic (and deterministic). This directly leads to a revision of the theory of catastrophy. It is a giant step forward from SOC (Self-Organized Criticalities) and the theory of fragility and infragility (Taleb), both based on some degree of randomness in the system. Now we can say that we cannot attribute all cause-and-effect to randomness alone. I can make an even stronger statement, that very little, if not none, of large perturbations is the work of unknowledgable random causes. The discovery of  intrinsic order hidden in the system raises some fundamental questions about the extent of the free market confronted with the work of the so called fat fingers and big hands and also about the borders of social acceptance of control and manipulation. One of the gravest examples is of course the recent devaluation of the euro against the swiss franc (EURCHF). Nothing was random there. It was a well prepared action supported by finely tuned chaotic parameters and a very clever scientific setup. 

Ian Dalling proposed a programme. You select, you click and press OK? I think that we misunderstand the issue of the question.

The problem is that most risk management sucks and creates fragilities while clearly there are antifragile entities who benefit from ill-conceived risks by others. How they do it, is a story for a good thriller book.  That they do it, there is no doubt.         

Sadly, today we measure risk in isolated silos - market, credit, operational, liquidity, counterparty, currency, etc...There is no dynamics to relate a comprehensive risk metric that measures an overall risk.  The dependencies are far a many and you have to wait till I complete my thesis to learn more about how to measure a risk metric that shows the inter-dependencies of risks.

Kris Veeraghanta, good luck with your thesis. How can you MEASURE a risk?

In order to make a decision you need to focus on the consequences rather than the probability. (which you cannot know). You run a great risk of using the wrong model.

You had better use measuring for the table (width and length) and FORECASTING   for the risk. We need to extricate utility from probability in order to perform any analysis of decision making. Mixing vocabulary has been very common in history and you already belong to history not making it quite. Your quest is quite a Utopian one, chasing your own tail. You will encounter the problem of self-reference, but unlike many problems of self-reference, those related to risk assessment have severe consequences. The problem you have is not so much making computations once you know the probabilities, but finding the true distribution.You will find that a certain class of statistical measures should be totally disallowed (the kurtosis). Students and governments should not be given toys they do not understand. 

One of the things we are all concerned (and wrongly, I might add) is the distribution patterns.  One ought to look at the inter-dependencies of various risks (the domino effect that caused the failure of Lehmann Brothers and Bear Stearns etc).  There is a way to model market risk, credit risk, operational risk, liquidity risk etc using a copula based model to come up with a risk index - which shows the overall risk of a firm or bank or portfolio etc (and probably could be traded like a Vix index). Distribution pattern is sadly two dimensional, whereas, using copulas, you can do high dimensional modeling without assumptions (and where there is a clear correlation, you can also use distribution dependencies by using Vine Copulas).

That is why you need to consider inter/intra dependencies of various risks - come up with a risk index that measures risks in totality.

i am not sure about your actual field of research. Anyway,The term “risk manager” is well-known in different fields, such as banking, civil engineering, information systems,

enterprise risk management, etc.

However, in a few field this phenomenon is not well explained like software engineering. or you can say, this role is not fully utilized by the software industry. May be my following paper helps you. Classification of Software Project Risk Managers:

Established on Roles and Responsibilities   

It is my view that we are all risk managers as individuals with varying degrees of competence. In an organisation, managing under uncertainty potentially pervades every part of an organisation in attempting to deliver its purpose and equitably satisfy its stakeholders' needs, expectations and aspirations. Managing under uncertainty embraces managing prospect (likely gain) and risk likely loss. This should ideally be done in an integrated or joined up thinking way. MSS 1000:2014 has recently been published and fully supports this concept and application. It is free to download from the web http://www.thecqi.org/Community/Special-Interest-Groups-SIGs/Integrated-Management-Group/Research-and-reports/ 

If you're referring to the relationship between CG and risk-taking the issue is very complex.

Management is subject to fads - a current fad (right or wrong) appears to be risk management. However, the value that 'risk professionals' add to an organisation is difficult to quantify or prove.

HUI,

You may be interested by this paper:

Differences in the Prices of Vulnerable Options with Different Counterparties

Journal of futures Markets, February 2017, (pages 148–163)

Xingchun Wang

Best regards