What’s Wrong with Enterprise Risk Management?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enterprise risk management (ERM) was introduced in the 1990s and has become an expectation by boards of directors and regulators as a sign of good management and good corporate governance. However, many organizations struggle to implement ERM, and still seek practical ad-vice on ERM implementation. This article explains many of the reasons why organizations are unsuccessful in their efforts at implementation and provides practical solutions by an experienced risk manager and consultant, an ex-Chief Risk Officer, and an academic, all who has writ-ten extensively in the subject. This article should be of interest to practitioners involved in implementing ERM, to consultants in ERM, and to academics teaching courses on ERM, risk management, and related topics. This article also provides a base against which further future re-search can be done as ERM best practices continue to evolve.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".