Risk Management in the Post Pandemic Business Environment
Abstract
The requirement to address risk in the prevailing business environment has been accentuated due to the constraints of the pandemic. It is proposed that the nature of risk context has been fundamentally altered by the global events of COVID. This paper provides a perspective that is based on an exploratory study of the identification and addressing of risk, in terms of business projects.
A review of the literature has been undertaken and the key themes for the study topic identified. A senior manager, who is responsible for risk management at a company that runs international projects, was interviewed in an empirical study. A thematic analysis was performed, employing an inductive approach, in this research into a single case. The aim was to contribute to the prevailing literature and enhance understanding of the post pandemic business environment, in respect of risk management.
The principal questions concerning risk and risk management are discerned. The objective is to consider risk in the post pandemic environment, in order to improve understanding of the issues relevant to business. The requirement to address these issues is also covered, with an attempt to determine the main themes from the research, in order to assist practitioners.
The use of technology to support business continuity and achieve business objectives during the pandemic is discussed. An articulation of Lewin’s change model is proposed to summarise this work and assist in the comprehension of the contemporary situation.
How to cite this article: Blair G, Woodcock H, Pagano R. Risk Management in the Post Pandemic Business Environment. J Adv Res Alt Energ Env Eco 2021; 8(3&4): 15-21.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2455.3093.202105
References
2. Maylor H. Project Management. FT Prentice Hall, Harlow, England, 2010.
3. Needle D. Business in Context: an Introduction to Business and its Environment (6/e), Cengage Learning EMEA.
4. Blair G, Pagano R. A Guide for Researchers to Negotiate the Research Process. Journal of Innovative Research in Education & Management 2021; 4(3): 1-5. Retrieved from http://ijirem.com/
5. Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R, Lowe A. Management Research: An Introduction. London: Sage, 1991.
6. Gilbert S, Kampinga AJ, Paniagua M et al. Considering sustainability in project management decision-making; An investigation using Q-methodology. International Journal of Project Management 2017; 35 (6): 1133-1150.
7. Lewin K. Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations 1947; 1(1): 5-41.
8. Lyytinen K, Newman M. Explaining Information systems change: a punctuated socio-technical change model.European Journal of Information Systems 2008; 17 (6): 589-613.
9. Marabelli M, Vaast E, Li JL. Preventing the digital scars of COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems 2021; 30 (2): 176-192.
10. Hacker J, vom Brocke J, Handali J et al. Virtually in this together - how web-conferencing systems enabled a new virtual togetherness during the COVID-19 crisis. European Journal of Information Systems 2020; 1-22.
11. Gino F, Staats B. Why Organizations Don’t Learn. Harvard Business Review 2019; 78-85.
12. Gino F, Pisano GP. Why Leaders Don’t Learn from Success. Harvard Business Review 2011; 90(10): 68-74.
13. Lovallo D, Koller T, Uhlaner R et al. Your Company is too Risk-Averse. Harvard Business Review 2020; 97(2): 104-111.
14. Pavez I, Gomez H, Laurie L et al. Project team resilience: the effect of group potency and interpersonal trust. International Journal of Project Management 2021; 1-12.
15. Esposito G, Nelson T, Ferlie E et al. The institutional shaping of global megaprojects: The case of the Lyon- Turin high-speed railway. International Journal of Project Management 2021; 1-14.
16. Willumsen PL, Oehmen J, Stingl V et al. Value creation through project risk management. International Journal of Project Management 2019; 37(5): 731-749.
17. Porter AJ, Hooff B. The complementarity of autonomy and control in mobile work. European Journal of Information Systems 2020; 29(2): 172-189.
18. Scoblic JP. Learning from the Future. Harvard Business Review 2020; 98(4): 38-47.
19. Kozyrkov C. To Recognise Risks Earlier, Invest in Analytics. Harvard Business Review 2020; 90(3): 53-55.
20. Kaplan RS, Leonard HB, Mikes A. The Risks You Can’t Foresee. Harvard Business Review 2020; 97(5): 40-46.
21. Blair G, Pagano R, Burns B. Contingency Framework for Addressing Failure in Information Systems. Journal of Innovative Research in IT & Computer Science 2019; 3(2): 1-4.
22. Blair G, Pagano R. Technology and the Environment - a Framework for a Symbiotic Relationship. Journal of Advanced Research in Alternative Energy, Environment and Ecology 2021; 8(2): 4-8.
23. Blair G, Pagano R. Leadership and Context to Create the New Technological Society. Journal of Innovative Research in Education & Management 2020; 4(1): 6-9. Retrieved from http://ijirem.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ICEM-2020-Dr.-Garry.pdf
24. Frydlinger D, Hart O, Vitasec K. A New Approach to Contracts: how to build better long-term strategic partnerships. Harvard Business Review 2019; 97(5): 116-129.
25. Blair G, Grant V, Woodcock H. Managing the Technology Life Cycle - a Contextual Approach to Analysis. Journal of Advanced Research In Engineering & Technology 2020; 4(1): 1-5. Retrieved from http://sijiret.com/
26. Blair G, Barratt S, Pagano R. Strategic Choices for the Post Pandemic Playbook. The Journal of Innovative Research In Social Sciences & Humanities 2021; 4(3): 15-20. Retrieved from http://ijirhsc.com/
27. Mishra AK. How do you assess the Dynamics of Sustainable Business Operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic? J Adv Res HR Organ Mqmt 2021; 8(1&2): 23-24.
28. Shakya S, Mishra AK. Risk Assessment in Construction of Gautam Buddha International Airport. J Adv Res Const Urban Arch 2019; 4(1):17-34.
