Exchange Ideas
The Knowledge Management of RiskThis blog is the introduction to knowledge management applied to risk management. Knowledge management includes technology (i.e., portals, data mining etc) and techniques (i.e., communities of practice, training and mentoring). April 07, 2012 Cloud Computing, Knowledge and Risk ManagementThe topic today is about two reflections related to Cloud Computing and its possible implications for Knowledge Management Systems design used in Risk Management: Cloud computing includes capacity for processing data, a central repository of software, access to use the software itself, and means to collaborate and develop projects that integrate many different resources. There are some acronyms, such as IAAS Infrastructure As A Service, PASS Platform As A Service and SAAS Software As A Service that are included in the Cloud Computing conceptualization. Cloud Computing can be associated with the Service Science concept, which has as one of its objectives keeping the study of mutual value creation (co-creation) between service systems (in our case organizations). Co-creation and Cloud Computing are concepts to leverage the knowledge management of risk management. Cloud Computing will possibly allow a better collaborative use of system tools, process capabilities, and knowledge in the organization; however, the proper use requires the understanding of the benefits that it generates and the possible risk factors/areas that demand more attention. Therefore, the first reflection is about the identification of the benefits of Cloud Computing in risk management. What are the benefits of Cloud Computing for Risk Management? There are many ways to describe the value that Cloud Computing brings to the organization of risk management. I have selected some of these benefits: - Potential reduction of technology costs. Possibly computing time, computing resources and modeling can gain synergies because of the use of the cloud All these benefits are possible to obtain based on the proper use of Cloud Computing, co-creation and its risk control. These benefits introduce the need to analyze the potential risks that organizations might deal with when are using Cloud Computing. Thus, the second reflection is: The need of analyzing the risk of Cloud Computing is related to many factors, which can be observed from different perspectives: user, provider or creator of the cloud. In this blog the focus is on some factors related to the adaptation and evolution of the organizations and the associated strategic and operational risks: - Lack of understanding of the technology trends by the executives and other stakeholders In conclusion, Cloud Computing is a new way to manage the services of the organization, to reorganize the technology management and to redefine the use of digital capital in the organization (possibly in the human capital space as well). The analysis related to collaboration, knowledge transfer and knowledge creation in risk management requires time and clarity from the organizations to leverage the benefits of Cloud Computing. Every step in the understanding improvement of Cloud Computing will be very valuable to develop capabilities to operate more efficiently and effectively under controlled risks. Eduardo Rodriguez T.MSc.Math, MBA, PhD
Posted by Eduardo Rodriguez at 04:22 PM | Comments (0) February 20, 2011 Need of formal research in Risk Knowledge Management-Call for papersWe need to do more formal research to understand how to manage our knowledge in risk management. We need to understand how to deal with the known, unknown and unknowable in risk management. For example, with the known we could need to improve the way that we transfer our knowledge to stakeholders and to improve the correct use of tools and means to know. With the unknown we might need to identify the ways to deal with risk effects and to search for ways to know. With the unknowable we should learn how to react and deal with the post adverse events and to develop means to reduce losses and to rebuild what has been affected. I have been participating with my research in forums seeking to understand more the way that knowledge Management can support Risk Management. Really, this is a very long and complex road to move through. Many things are related, people’s knowledge, socio-economic conditions, risk management systems, human and organization power positions, regulations etc. I want to invite more people to participate with formal research to discover how to improve our risk knowledge management and to achieve the goal of how to be more effective and efficient using this knowledge for reducing the negative consequences of the adverse events. This year I am the chair of two mini-tracks in the field of application of Knowledge Management to risk Management. One of the mini-tracks is related to decisions under risk and knowledge management and another one is related to the knowledge processes and risk management. Send your papers and enrich the discussions among practitioners and academics around the world. The conferences are academic, peer review and with great people involved. European Conference Knowledge Management University of Passau Germany September 1-2 2011
Best regards, Eduardo Rodriguez Posted by Eduardo Rodriguez at 10:46 PM | Comments (0) January 12, 2011 Is Risk Management Understood? Communicated properly?This is an invitation to think about risk knowledge transfer. The need of being more efficient, effective and a real engine of value added for the organization is growing and for that we need to study solutions for an important problem: How to transfer risk knowledge to the stakeholders, mainly to the board of directors and executives in our organizations? Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) and Knowledge Management (KM) both encompass top-down and bottom-up approaches developing and embedding risk knowledge concepts and processes in strategy, policies, risk appetite definition, the decision-making process and business processes. The capacity to transfer risk knowledge affects all stakeholders and the understanding of the risk knowledge about the enterprise’s value is a key requirement in order to identify protection strategies for business sustainability. There are various factors that affect this capacity for transferring and understanding risk knowledge. Previous work has established that there is a difference between the influence of KM variables on Risk Control and on the perceived value of ERM. Communication among groups appears as a significant variable in improving Risk Control but only as a weak factor in improving the perceived value of ERM. However, the ERM mandate requires for its implementation a clear understanding, of risk management (RM) policies, actions and results, and the use of the integral view of RM as a governance and compliance program to support the value driven management of the organization. There is an important work to do on the development of means for transferring risk knowledge that provide, effectively, a satisfactory level of understanding of risk management outcomes for the decision making process. Best regards, Eduardo Rodriguez You can find the article in the proceedings of the ICICKM 2010 Hong Kong http://www.academic-conferences.org/icickm/icickm2010/icickm10-home.htm Posted by Eduardo Rodriguez at 02:25 PM | Comments (0) September 14, 2010 Thinking about our Risk Knowledge Transfer capabilitiesThe financial institutions are information and knowledge organisations (Fourie and Shilawa 2004). And given that risk is one of the business issues to deal with in a financial institution and to manage risk “is frequently not a problem of a lack of information, but rather a lack of knowledge with which to interpret its meaning” (Marshall et al. 1996). In particular, Risk Management (RM) is a selection of risk actions to protect the organisation against adverse events that affect growth, change potential results and pricing decisions or as Lam (2003) quoted: “The risk management process does not stop at promoting risk awareness or measuring risk exposures. The ultimate objective is to optimize the risk-return of the business; or to put it slightly differently, to effect real change in the risk profile of the company.” RM is evolving to Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) as a strategic step. Lam (2003) pointed out: “As a topic, strategic or enterprise risk management... is really just plain, good risk management practise suited up... risk management didn’t arrive on the scene as a holistic practice. Rather it lapped up on our shores in waves.” This step needs to identify a practice under the same philosophical principles in the risk management processes from risk identification to risk control (McCarthy and Flynn 2004). Dickinson (2001) defined ERM as: “a systematic and integrated approach to the management of the total risks that a company faces.” And Bowling and Rieger (2005) indicated ERM benefits presenting some of them such as: support to the governance process, better administration of RM costs, and: “Through increased communication, RM leads to broader understanding and recognition of risks” and many others related to the reduction of risk profile.
The flow of information for risk knowledge in an ERM context needs communication capacity among the different groups of risk management. A clear relationship between effectiveness of communication means and risk knowledge sharing has not been identified. Julibert (2008) presented that there is an interest and need of: “greater access to information as well as more open communication with colleagues.” However, there is a barrier to overcome that is related to the fear of sharing as the authors indicated: “The fear of disruptive intrusions to the creative process and the influence of personality and national culture on the willingness to share were raised by some interviewees.” Knowledge, experience and feedback in an organisation have a flow in both directions: top-down and bottom-up. The hierarchical relationship among data, information and knowledge can be analyzed; however, the core of the analysis is indeed in the identification of knowledge with information processed by individuals and the recognition of information like knowledge adapted to be communicated. This means that risk knowledge sharing requires more than IT; it requires the creation of a means to share. Communication processes are required to guide the knowledge sharing. There are conditions of communication to understand, related to the source and the user in terms of knowledge sharing. Communication perception is based on the level of understanding of the messages that are transmitted and the means used. The relationship of the knowledge transfer between risk management staff and to board and executives is not clear. This leads to identify the following hypothesis. Risk knowledge sharing and effective communication depend on the overlap and amalgamation of knowledge bases among people. Knowledge sharing requires more than IT; it requires the creation of a mechanism to share; Te’eni (2006) said: “ Communication relies on knowledge regardless of its form and medium and KM will have to rise to the occasion.” This means that it takes into account the differentiation of knowledge sharing within and between groups, for example, the knowledge adapted to be communicated among individuals and groups (Alavi and Leidner 2001). This knowledge sharing and its benefits are affected by (Uzzi and Lancaster 2003) internal relationships. Beside, Waldvogel and Whelan (2008) indicated that collaboration and communication support RM learning. In summary, knowledge sharing and communication could affect RM practice. Risk Management requires clear communication with experts. Experts need to communicate with different stakeholders. Communication among experts and with people performing different activities could be a way to gain business value of the expert criteria and a proper information-knowledge use. The flow of information-knowledge and communication which is a component of the RM work can be interrupted if there is not a proper connection with experts that provide meaning to information. Goovaerts et al. (1984) wrote referring to the RM work in insurance that if only incomplete information is available the actuary is the one who decides the principles and distributions to use. This means communication with experts can be fundamental to developing a RM program or to solving a problem given the influence on the interpretation and context analysis of the content. This is applicable to the analysis of market risk, operational risk, strategic risk, credit risk and actions of risk mitigation, risk transfer and risk capacity evaluation. • Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. (2001) “Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues”, MIS Quarterly ,Vol. 25, No.1, pp 107-136 Posted by Eduardo Rodriguez at 12:43 AM | Comments (0) December 31, 2009 Risk Knowledge Management in our timeRisk Knowledge Management in our time Today I have some additional points to continue with the introduction of the concept of Risk Knowledge Management (RKM). Knowledge Management (KM) has various different definitions from scholars and practitioners, some of the main ideas are related to the management of intangible assets in order to improve the sustainable competitive advantages of the organization; however, I will include in this note only the concept of using our experience to build competences and to take strategic and tactical actions for a better organization, this means toward creating value. Knowledge and risk are related, at least, from the capacity that knowledge has to reduce uncertainty and when a risk has to be analyzed new knowledge is created. However, the question that probably is the most important to answer these days is how we can build a better future based on our experience. One experience that we have had for many years is that there have been economical crises in different levels from organizations to society as a whole. But what about our capacity to manage the learning and knowledge gained from these crises, is this enough? We have had crises in countries with 2 and 3 digit inflation and the countries have recovered, We have had difficulties in organizations for years some of them have recovered others not. I mentioned in my blog 2, some of the issues: growth in American Express, Bankers Trust because of communication, Barings because of controls etc, or in general because there were not good early warning systems or prediction models or probably the most important a weak coordination of work across the organization. There are points of reflection related to the capacity for work coordination, communication with stakeholders, capacity to discuss and to analyze assumptions, capacity to develop means to accept that truth is not coming from a single person but It could be more important to use collective intelligence. How good is the preparation of management to analyze the difficult truths, how difficult is it for management to be conscious and accept that we need to deal with the danger of what Pfeffer and Sutton (2006) called Hard Facts, and Half-Truths. Another interesting point is related to the idea of Operational Risk that is mainly related to humans and technology interaction. This interaction requires everyday more attention from management to use more scope economies based on using in a better way technology for creating capabilities, and not just accumulate technology by itself without a good application by people. Risk knowledge management is about the development of the capacity for creating new value and enterprise solutions based on our Risk Management (RM) experience and the creation of enablers that are required, such as knowledge. Risk Knowledge Management enables us to develop capacity to analyze and to build solutions where many sources and different approaches to problem solving are accepted and organized. Professor Jay Liebowitz in his book ” What they didn’t tell you about knowledge management “ indicates some steps to develop knowledge management programs that I adapted to risk knowledge management settings concentrating on how to use our risk management experience and how to deal with it for the future. In summary, the invitation is to develop a Risk Knowledge Management program and, philosophy and to use our experience and knowledge, tacit and explicit, working with a holistic view, following at least the 5 previous points and to use RM and KM competences for making better decisions under risk. It is important to be aware that a lot of analyses have been performed but not used. During the last century many financial crises have occurred and the analysis of their causes has left a trace in RM. Brealey and Meyers (2002) referred to the 1987 crash as a case to study where the causes have to be identified and presented different views about these causes that included some lessons to learn: markets do not have memory, it is not possible to search continuously for an extraordinary benefit and the prices were too high. However, the question is how much risk knowledge management processes such as risk knowledge sharing have improved and how the experience has been learned and used. Equally, Nohria and Stewart wrote in 2006 that during the twentieth century management emphasized on risk and that “Uncertainty and doubt push the boundaries of management as we know it....the flight from uncertainty and ambiguity is so motivated, and the desire to reduce what is fundamentally unknowable to probabilities and risk so strong, that we often create pseudo uncertainty”. This is an open window to search and to develop the capacity to manage knowledge for risk management in the way that Bronowski said “Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty” and the same time to understand that we will continue making decisions under risk and we are not good yet applying knowledge management to RM processes. • Bronowski J http://www.finestquotes.com/author_quotes-author-Jacob%20Bronowski-page-0.htm accessed October 2009 Posted by Eduardo Rodriguez at 01:50 PM | Comments (0) February 22, 2009 Darwin, Lincoln and Risk Knowledge ManagementThe last issue of the Smithsonian magazine introduces in the title a reflection about these two great men that changed the world view of understanding our existence and our rights. The amazing thing is that both were born the same day, February 12, 1809. Their contributions have had the highest impact on our life. The point that I bring today is to open a discussion about the analysis of our financial world evolution and the slavery that we have to many current economical paradigms. Probably we need a vision of evolution and equality in the financial market and the impact that they can have on the risk knowledge management in terms of learning from experience and the development of business solutions in times of crisis. In one of my books, The Mathematical Management, in Spanish Gerencia Matemática, I wrote something about the need of changing the current management view and trying to use some of the principles of mathematical growth using abstraction, conceptualization, management of logic and development of new knowledge before any generalization. Generalization without foundation creates a lot of issues in management. In some cases the world appears designed on the reverse when we accept some of these generalizations as truths and we do not develop risk knowledge management skills when we know that the generalization fails, for instance: But, all these ideas came again to my mind when I read Stefang Zweig‘s article (Austrian writer 19th and 20th century). He was thinking about the post First World War and living in Vienna. This article of real life from Reader Digest, September 1941 gave me some insights that we are on a questionable track. The example is a reflection about the value of things. One of these is money. There is a lot of value in many things that are not the most important or we provide more value to many things, the same as we inflate the value of the shares, in many cases they are not real; they are only dreams. Mr. Zweig was a witness of the crazy inflation and loss of money value in his time. He wrote” … While the more the money lost value, the more people liked the eternal values: work, love, friendship, art, nature” and he said additionally, “Our security does not reside in what we possess; it is in what we are and what we achieve in our life.” In summary, we might give value to something that is not the most important; in many cases we are inflating the value of things and we are creating chaos from this unreal value. Possibly, we need something that creates another evolution step in the meaning of value, the pricing and the concept of assets and equity; probably, we need to understand equality in order to align the value. In general, it seems that paradigms of our world in financial terms have to change and at the same time we will change the level of the solutions and risk management principles. Research space During these turbulent days the Research Space just brings you to the level of thinking of new business models, alternative solutions to reduce cost but not to use only layoffs when crises are coming. There is a huge risk that the organization will keep only what is not important, probably the executives are not the ones where the knowledge resides and they are losing the know-how, the know-what, the know-why, the know-where, etc. The question is how to reduce costs or to be more efficient creating with employees more distribution channels? Developing better supply chain structures? Developing new services? Developing new products? How to foster entrepreneurship? We need more Darwins and Lincolns the same as new business models and new paradigms for economic life. Think about some and provide me your input. Your model and my model As always, this section brings a comment and reflection about the model of management that I created, based on conceptualization, knowledge, risk and centred on people. The point today is that we have many different metrics, indicators and data. We need to work on the specifications of the concepts that we want to measure in our company performance evaluation. We must create he metrics relationships where they exist and develop, from these relationships, the information systems and knowledge management systems. This means first defining what your organization thinks is the most valuable to measure in order to create what the organization wants, strategy; once the metrics are defined we need to identify the net of relationships and then design systems. Think about this evolution of performance evaluation, because probably you are more interested in measuring RAROC than ROI and probably you need to understand more the concept of strategic risks and more about the industry development first than the specific peril or hazard. We cannot continue only working in silos of knowledge when we need to understand strategic risk first because the strategy involves everyone in an organization. Mathematical Circle Eduardo Rodriguez Posted by Eduardo Rodriguez at 12:54 PM | Comments (0) November 08, 2008 Managing Knowledge for the Transition to ERMToday I have brought some interesting points to keep in mind for Knowledge Management (KM) and its application to Enterprise Risk Management (ERM): RM description ERM description With the identification of these attributes the first thing that we are doing is testing the validity and value of some factors affecting a Knowledge Management System (KMS) to support ERM. The reason is that our hypotheses are related to the capacity that a discipline as KM has in order to solve issues that are needed in the transition from KM to ERM. Issues such us: In summary, kindly take into consideration the previous list when you are thinking in ERM and send us your comments and issues where you can find that a structured information system that supports knowledge transfer, collaboration and a better enterprise-wide view (this is a KMS). It will be great and we will be able to provide guidelines to future design of better tools that support ERM. The reason is that it seems that one of the biggest issue in banking crisis and probably in other affected areas is the silo culture and the lack of good knowledge transfer, reduced capacity for early warning systems that foster and support actions. Research Space Mathematical Circle "Heavier-than-air flying machines are not possible" Lord Kelvin 1895 In these days of paradigm changes or possible crisis we have to be more cautious about our future views. There is a responsibility in reducing chaos and to be more precise and possible to add more rigour to our views. The assumptions have to be clearer and stronger in the mathematical modelling process for example. More experienced knowledge is required in applied mathematics, not just logic, we need to understand more what could happened if the assumptions are not reached. Management must be proactive in contributing to the assumptions definition, not just ask for the result or questioning the assumptions and stop there, but providing valuable input to the process of products and knowledge creation and the assumptions. A bad product-knowledge creation can be the beginning of a monster-model that is only understandable by the creator (we hope). The issue is that management will use for competing without the understanding of what the potential "monster" or "beauty" are or will do(this is not very far from our current crisis and reality). Thank you Eduardo Rodriguez Posted by Eduardo Rodriguez at 11:44 AM | Comments (0) September 24, 2008 Reflections about KM in the current financial worldReflections about KM (Knowledge Management) in the current financial world The company operation Bowman (1980) describes the paradox of having a negative association between corporate return and risk when there is a positive relationship, from the portfolio point of view, between return and risk. The meaning is that companies with lower risk and higher return have a higher share price, reducing the return for the owner or buyer of the stocks This result has inspired many different articles in order to understand whether the better the organization´s knowledge, the better the risk. The risk will have consequences for the investor’s decision depending on the return appetite. In the final analysis, I think that the integration of KM and RM could contribute to the creation of a more competitive and sustainable advantage, because: Thus, the big question that I have is: can we identify and show that failures are related to the five points above (KM and RM ties) and to learn from the conclusions in order to avoid deeper crises. Please, reflect about the comments that I have below for some of historical difficulties/failures that can have roots in a lack of managing the knowledge processes (Simons,1999): • Expansion: In American Express in 1987 the growth affected the operations. There was fast expansion, faster than the capacity. The knowledge support was minimal to manage Optima a newly introduced product. In conclusion, these examples show that the five points could show that the integration of KM and RM could deal with avoiding failures in risk management as Marshal et al (1996) identified as: dysfunctional culture, unmanaged organizational knowledge and ineffective controls. Some researchers have studied the relationship between knowledge, innovation and share price. They have found that the knowledge-based enterprise obtains firm value based on human capital, research and development, patents and technological assets. Similarly, financial ratios have been examined and it has been found that intangible assets add value to increase equity and to produce better equity ratios. There are several examples of the identification of the relationships between the investor’s psychology and the perception of risk. Some of these analyses are related to perception of risk and how it can affect decisions, and in turn can be affected by knowledge and information about reputation, business longevity and perception of organization competitiveness. Some authors conclude that the stock return is associated with three elements: energy, perceived brand relevance and financial performance measures. However, we do not have a lot of knowledge about the ways to manage crises even if we know that they are coming. In summary, the reflections to think about are related to and arise from the internal operations of the financial institutions and the observation of the users of the financial system. Users that have fears, knowledge, chain reactions and trust lost when a company has troubles.. Probably this opens a chapter in Risk Knowledge Management that is Crisis Knowledge Management in order to manage a critical situation. Research space Your model and my model!!! Mathematical Circle: Thank you Eduardo Rodriguez Posted by Eduardo Rodriguez at 11:26 PM | Comments (0) June 10, 2008 Risk, Knowledge and Risk Knowledge Management SystemsHow can we discover Knowledge Management (KM) and Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) relationships? First, people are agents in KM and ERM. KM is embedded in culture and individuals, and organizational knowledge sharing is required to operate the business. Moreover, knowledge includes a state of mind with cognitive elements -tacit and explicit- that affects the involvement of people in processes and their individual memory. In the case of ERM, we may find that operational risks occur because of human errors. This means that probably the selection of right people behind processes and their knowledge can help to mitigate risks. Some authors point out that more knowledge can mean lower risk and that people will be coordinated based on the processes and organizational structure. Second, KM and ERM disciplines have their own processes. However, process management has common elements applicable to both disciplines, such as the way the organization designs processes, measures results, defines roles and responsibilities and connects actions with strategy. Knowledge can be considered as a process itself (for some authors this is the case) that needs, the same as the KM processes, a structure for its management based on the understanding of business processes and the technology that supports them. Each process has associated risks related to human actions and choice of resources. These risks are studied by the ERM processes. This means that ERM has to analyze people’s actions, operations and knowledge in order to mitigate risks of the business processes. Third, technology supports the processes for KM and ERM. KM processes include the “how” to access information. This access to information requires the creation of information systems. These systems can evolve to knowledge management systems that support the company’s results providing access to information, knowledge development, technology and organizational structure support. One of the main components of the information is the one of risk management. This means having an information system that evolves to a knowledge management system that support risk management across the organization. In summary, the search for relationships between KM and ERM can be based on people, processes and technology in order to support the organization. The evidence of the relationships has to be discovered based on research to understand the connections and ways to complement the two disciplines. Research space I want to share one of de Bono’s reflections about teaching thinking that is applicable to our development of models, interpretation of results and capacity to share the meaning in order to make decisions. In the traditional approach, says de Bono, three components are the bases of errors in thinking: fluency (referral material), freedom from error (no apparent error and taken as correct) and logical consistency. De Bono says that we have concentrated a lot on the logic consistency that is not the main cause of thinking errors. He proposes: partialism, time scale, egocentricity, arrogance and conceit, initial judgement, adversarial thinking, ego involvement, magnitude of error and extremes. This is something to think about. I have found a lot of these kinds of errors and in risk management it is very important to overcome the barriers that these errors create in order to mitigate the “risk of errors” in risk management. Your model and my model!!! Now, the model that I have is based on the assumption that risk, concepts and knowledge are the pillars of a managerial mind. See http://iqanalytics.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=21&Itemid=78 Mathematical Circle: One of the most important contributions of the Bourbaki group was the capacity to work together as a community of practice with the objective of formalizing mathematics. Communities of practice are techniques used in Knowledge Management; the purpose is to connect people with a specific objective that voluntarily want to share knowledge. In risk management, communities of practice can be very useful to avoid reinventing the wheel, to learn from experiences and to create an environment to reduce the “risks” of risk management. Thank you Eduardo Rodriguez Posted by Eduardo Rodriguez at 11:55 PM | Comments (0) May 09, 2008 What is this blog about?This blog will follow these four subjects -Risk,Knowledge and Risk Knowledge Management Systems In the first one we will have the conceptual bases in risk knowledge management, in the second one we will open a subject to analyze and discuss, the third one we will talk about our models of operation and models of management risk. Finally, the mathematical circle is for having a place to talk about mathematics. 1. What is Risk Knowledge Management? Here we will use this concept of risk knowledge as a process of applying expertise and risk knowledge flows considering four processes: knowledge creation, knowledge transfer, knowledge storage and retrieval and knowledge application(based on Alavi and Leidner 2001). 2. For this month the research space is about using models: Do you consider that the models are understood by decision makers? Do you consider that modelling is doing a good work for Risk Management? How communicate the assumptions of the models to people who are not in our field? 3. Your model my model: Please, tell me if this is true for you: The management pillars are risk, knowledge and conceptualization process based on people development. The process of conceptualize within the organization has to be excellent in order to manage risk and knowledge to create value and sustainable competitive advantages. Do you agree? 4. Mathematical Circle: What were the bases of the organization of the Bourbaki group? Best regards, communicate with me eduardo.rodriguez@iqanalytics.com and go to my portal www.iqanalytics.com References Posted by Eduardo Rodriguez at 10:17 AM | Comments (0) April 17, 2008 About Eduardo RodriguezHe has been working in all aspects of the design, data collection, processing, evaluation and analysis for statistical research projects associated with risk and strategy. Eduardo has over twenty years of management experience in the insurance and banking industry working on top management (VP Marketing, VP Planning)and analytics positions that comprise: data mining, forecasting, marketing strategy, customer service and products and development of services, supporting to business development and creating capacity in statistical and research analysis in risk. Currently, he is Principal of IQAnalytics in Ottawa Canada and Quantitative Analyst at EDC Export Development Canada in Ottawa. He possesses a bachelor's degree in Mathematics, an MBA, a MSc Degree in Mathematics, certification from the Advanced Management Program at McGill University and currently he is a PhD Candidate at Aston Business School in the UK doing research in the field of Knowledge Management applied to Enterprise Risk Management. His experience in strategy, knowledge management and in risk includes the creation of strategic, technical and operative marketing models to customize products, using different distribution channels; implementation of information systems for service evaluation; technology selection for branch office operations; development of risk classification tools and knowledge management tools for supporting risk management. For many years he has been involved with academia as part time professor in the fields of mathematics and operations research, and as a trainer of professionals in business. He has published four books in the fields of risk management, knowledge management, operations and a new field called Mathematical Management. He participates actively in international conferences and currently is part of the committee of the European Knowledge Management Conference 2008 and 2009. Eduardo Rodriguez
Posted by Eduardo Rodriguez at 11:14 AM | Comments (0) |
 CategoriesArchives
Recent Entries
|
