طراحی مدل ارزیابی مدیریت ریسک در شرکت‌های خودروساز: نظریه داده‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌بنیاد

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد، دانشگاه تهران.

2 دانشجوی دکتری، پردیس البرز دانشگاه تهران.

چکیده

هدف این پژوهش، ارائه مدل فرایندی ارزیابی مدیریت ریسک شرکت­‌های خودروساز است که چرایی ورود خودروساز به فرایند ارزیابی مدیریت ریسک و چگونگی این فرایند را تشریح می­‌کند. با اتکا به رویکرد نظریه داده‌بنیاد و نتایج حاصل از 28 مصاحبه عمیق با 18 تَن از خبرگان، به­‌صورت‌بندی الگویی اکتشافی ـ فرایندی برای تشریح پدیده‌ی ارزیابی مدیریت ریسک از دیدگاه شرکت خودروساز پرداخته شده است. برای تجزیه­‌2و­تحلیل و تلفیق داده‌ها از روش کیفی ـ استقرایی نظریه داده‌بنیاد شامل مراحل کدگذاری باز، کدگذاری محوری و کدگذاری گزینشی مبتنی بر رویکرد سیستماتیک اشتراوس و کوربین استفاده شد. بر مبنای این چارچوب، مقوله شرایط علّی ورود خودروساز به فرایند ارزیابی مدیریت ریسک شامل عوامل سازمانی، ملّی و بین‌المللی تبیین می‌­شود؛ همچنین چهار مقوله دیگر که چگونگی ارزیابی مدیریت ریسک را توسط خودروساز تشریح می­‌کند، عبارت‌­اند از: مقوله عوامل بسترساز شامل بسترهای سازمانی، ملّی و بین­‌المللی؛ مقوله عوامل اقتضایی شامل ماهیت عوامل متغیر محیطی، ماهیت مشتری و ماهیت خودروساز؛ مقوله اهداف شامل نتایج ملّی و نتایج سازمانی (بقا، رشد و سودآوری) و مقوله راهکار (فرآیند مواجهه) شامل مراحل پیش‌مواجهه، مواجهه و پس‌مواجهه. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Designing the Model of Assessing the Risk management of Automaker Companies in Iran: Grounded Theory

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Mohaghar 1
  • Alireza Khorasani 2
1 Professor, University of Tehran.
2 Ph.D Student, University of Tehran Alborz Campus.
چکیده [English]

The purpose of this paper is to present a process model for assessing the risk management of automobile companies, in which it explains why the automaker enters the process of risk management assessment and how this process works. Based on the Grounded theory (GT) approach and the results of 22 in-depth interviews with 18 experts, a exploratory-process model for describing the risk management assessment phenomenon from the viewpoint of the automaker has been addressed. To analyze and integrate the data, the qualitative-inductive method of the GT including open coding steps, axial coding, and selective coding based on Strauss and Corbin's systematic approach were used. Based on this framework, Causal Conditions of the arrival of the automaker to the process of risk management assessment including organizational, national and international factors. The four other categories that describe how risk management is assessed by the automaker are: Intervening factors including the organizational, national and international context, the contingency factors including the nature of the environmental variables, the nature of the customer and the nature of the automaker, the categories of consequences including national results and Organizational result (survival, growth and profitability) and the category of strategy (exposure process) include pre-exposure, exposure and post-exposure stages.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Automaker
  • Assessment Proccess
  • Assessment Models
  • Risk Management
  • Grounded Theory

مراجع

1. Arena, M., Arnaboldi, M. & Azzone, G. (2011). Is enterprise risk management real? Journal of Risk Research, 14(7), 779-797.
2. Ballantyne, R. (2013). An Empirical Investigation into the Association between Enterprise Risk Management and Firm Financial Performance, Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Business Administration, Lawrence Technological University College of Management.
3. Bazargan, A. (2015). The Introduction to the ways of quantity and mixed research. Tehran, Didar publication (In Persian).
4. Chileshe, N., & Kikwasi, G. (2014). Critical success factors for implementation of risk assessment and management practices within the Tanzania construction industry”. Engineering, Construction and Architrectual Management, 21(3), 291-319.
5. Coetzee, G.P. & Lubbe, D. (2013). Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research - The risk maturity of South African private and public sector organizations. Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research, 14(1), 45-56.
6. COSO (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission), (2004). Enterprise Risk Management—Integrated Framework. Jersey City, NJ: AICPA/COSO.
7. COSO. (2004). Enterprise Risk Management —Integrated Framework, No 1-7.
8. Dickinson, G. (2001). Enterprise Risk Management: Its Origins and Conceptual Foundation. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 26(3), 360-366.
9. Farrell, M., & Gallagher, R. (2015). The valuation implications of enterprise risk management maturity. Journal of Risk and Insurance, Forthcoming. doi: 10.1111/jori.12035.
10. Harland, C., Brenchley, R., & Walker, H., (2005). ”Risk in supply networks”, Published in Harvard business review 2005. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 9 (2003), 51–62.
11. Harlanda, Ch., Brenchleyb, R., & Walkera, H. (2002). A Centre for Research in Strategic Purchasing and Supply (CRiSPS), School of Management, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, UK bConcept Bubble, The Bubble House, 21 Dublin Crescent, Bristol BS9 4NA, UK Received 28 May 2002; accepted 2 December 2002.
12. Jafarinejhad, N., Moghbel, A., & Azar, A. (2014). Extracting the main factors of ERM by meta-synthesis method. Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 15, 85-107 (In Persian).
13. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry, 1st edn, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
14. Lonescu, L. (2008). Toward establishing efficient internal controls. Economics. Management and Finantial markets, 3(1), 80-84.
15. Mello, J., & Flint, D. (2009). A refined view of Grounded Theory and its application to logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics, 30(1), 107-125.
16. Mohaghar, A., & Sadeghi Moghadam, M. (2011). The coordination of supply chain in Auto Industry. Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 4, 29-63 (In Persian).
17. Monda, B., & Giorgino, M. (2013). An Enterprise Risk Management maturity model, Politecnico di Milano - Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering Department, JEL codes: G32
18. Monika Wieczorek-Kosmala (2014). Risk management practices from maturity modekls perspective. JEEMS, 19(2), 133-159.
19. PopoviĆ, S. ToskoviĆ, J., & Macura R. (2015). The Importance of evaluation of risk management in business. Annals of the “Constantin Brancusi”, University of Targu Jiu,Economy Seris, Issue 5/2015.
20. Sara A. Lundqvist (2014). An Exploratory Study of Enterprise Risk Management: Pillars of ERM. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 29(3), 393–429.
21. Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J.M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, California.
22. Talebi, D., & Iron, F. (2015). Identifying the supply chain risks and selecting the supplier by the process of network analysis. Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 17, 31-43 (In Persian).
23. Timothy, A. Krause Yiuman Tse, (2016). "Risk management and firm value: recent theory and evidence". International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, 24(1), 56-81.
24. Tricarico, P., Tardivo, S., Sotgiu, G., Moretti, F., Poletti, P., Fiore, A., Monturano, M., Mura, I., Privitera, G., & Brusaferro, S. (2016). Clinical Assessment of Risk Management: an INtegrated Approach (CARMINA). International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 29(7), 744-758.
25. Viscelli, T.R., Beasley, M.S., & Hermanson, D.R. (2016). Research Insights About Risk Governance: Implications from a review of ERM Research, SAGE Open, No 1-17.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار