The method of expert assessments in risk assessment. Expert method of risk analysis. combined method

Introduction

Risk is inherent in any field economic activity. The problem of risk is of particular importance in entrepreneurship, where intensive changes in the environment of a business entity necessitate a prompt and energetic response to the transformations that come in business. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the industry specifics that determine the risk factors, the degree of their manifestation and significance.

The lack of evidence-based approaches to the analysis and risk assessment of research and production enterprises leads to such undesirable consequences as loss of profits, unsold stocks of goods, reduced investment efficiency, the occurrence of losses in transactions, a reduction in the resource base, etc.

The works of domestic and foreign scientists are devoted to the issues of analysis and assessment of risks in the activities of enterprises. A significant contribution to the development of these issues was made by scientists economists: V. A. Abchuk, A. P. Algin, K. M. Arginbaev, M. I. Bakanov, I. T. Balabanov, V. V. Bokov, V. A. Borovkova, E.S. Vasilchuk, V.V. Glushchenko, P.G. Grabovyi, V.M. Granaturov, A.M. Dubrov, B.A. Lagosha, A.A. Pervozvansky, B.A. Raizberg, V.T. Sevruk, A.A. Spivak, V.A. Chernov, A.S. Shapkin, A.D. Sheremet and others. Among foreign scientists, the following works can be noted: W. Barton, T. Bachkai, E. Vogkhan, M. Green, S. Williams, K. Redhead and others. V. A. Borovkova, A. M. Omarova, V. M. Granaturova, E.V. Seregina, G.A. Taktarova, G.V. Chernov and others.

However, despite a significant amount of research in the field of risk analysis and an active search for ways to objectively assess the magnitude of risk, many methodological and methodological issues of this important problem have not yet been resolved. So, in particular, so far there is no consensus on the nature and content of the economic risk of enterprises, criteria and indicators (general and private) for assessing economic risk have not been substantiated, there is no evidence-based classification of factors that determine economic risks, in particular external risks. enterprise risks in market conditions functioning.

The need to improve the risk assessment of an enterprise and, in particular, a research and production enterprise in market conditions predetermined the relevance of the research topic.

Purpose and objectives of the study. Target term paper is to improve theoretical foundations and development of guidelines for the analysis of external risk and an expert method for assessing the risk of research and production enterprises in market conditions of functioning in order to increase the efficiency of their development.

To achieve this goal, the following tasks were set and solved in the course work:

Analysis of risk sources of research and production enterprises and their classification;

Identification of risk features at research and production enterprises and their assessment in modern conditions;

Development of a methodological approach to risk assessment at research and production enterprises using the expert method.

Subject of research is an external risk analysis. The analysis of external risk is understood as an assessment of the degree of influence of the external environment on the activities of a research and production enterprise.

The closed research and production enterprise was chosen as the object of the study. joint-stock company"Samara Horizons".

The theoretical and methodological basis of the course work was the work of domestic and foreign researchers.

Information base of the study. The data of CJSC NPP "Samara Horizons" were used as initial information in the research.

1. Analysis and risk assessment

The problem of analysis, assessment and risk management in the implementation of production activities by enterprises is today one of the central problems in the Russian economy. In a planned economy, when unprofitable enterprises received subsidies through the redistribution of funds from profitable enterprises, these problems were not so urgent. Currently, if the company does not make a profit, and even more so if there is no return on investment, then the company is on the verge of bankruptcy. Therefore, the rational use of funds and taking into account the risk factor is the most important moment in the activities of the enterprise.

In the conditions of the formation of market relations, the role and importance of individual elements of the management process has changed radically, therefore, the theoretical approaches to their analysis, evaluation and organization at the enterprise are also changing.

The number of unresolved problems in the field of managing economic and industrial risks in industrial enterprises increased markedly now with the advent of a competitive environment.

At the same time, it is important to take into account that any of the objects and subjects of production activity is exposed to the systemic impact of risks of various hierarchical levels: geopolitical, political, social, economic, financial, industrial, commercial, and man-made.

The risk can be reduced, first of all, by careful preliminary study, calculation of operations, choice of a rational, less dangerous course of action. Correct accounting of risk factors and rational risk management at the enterprise contributes to its successful market activity, while other enterprises whose management does not pay due attention to risks, in a similar market situation, inevitably turn out to be unprofitable. Therefore, the issues of theory and practice of risk assessment and management have acquired particular relevance at the present time.

The purpose of risk analysis is to provide potential partners with the necessary data to make decisions about the appropriateness of participating in the project and provide for measures to protect against possible financial losses. Risk analysis is performed in the sequence shown in fig. one.

Figure 1. Sequence of risk analysis.

General principles of risk analysis. When talking about the need to take into account risk in project management, they usually mean its main participants: the customer, investor, performer (contractor) or seller, buyer, as well as insurance company. When analyzing the risk of any of the project participants, the following criteria proposed by the famous American expert B. Berlimer:

Risk losses are independent of each other;

A loss in one direction from the “risk portfolio” does not necessarily increase the probability of a loss in another (except in force majeure circumstances);

The maximum possible damage should not exceed the financial capabilities of the participant.

Risk analysis can be divided into two complementary types: qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative analysis can be relatively simple, its the main task- identify risk factors, stages of work during which the risk arises, i.e., establish potential risk areas, and then identify all possible risks. Quantitative risk analysis, i.e., the numerical determination of the size of individual risks and the risk of the project as a whole, is a more complex problem. All factors, one way or another affecting the growth of the degree of risk in the project, can be conditionally divided into objective and subjective.

1.1. Risk zones and risk curve

An entrepreneur should always strive to take into account the possible risk and provide for measures to reduce its level and compensate for probable losses. This is the essence of risk management (risk management). The main goal of risk management (especially for the conditions of modern Russia) is to ensure that in the worst case we can talk about the lack of profit, but not about the bankruptcy of the organization. To assess the degree of acceptability of commercial risk, it is necessary to allocate risk zones depending on the expected amount of losses. The general scheme of risk zones is shown in fig. 2.

Figure 2. Risk zones.

The area in which losses are not expected, i.e. where the economic result economic activity positive is called the risk-free zone. The zone of acceptable risk is the area within which the amount of probable losses does not exceed the expected profit and, therefore, commercial activity has economic viability. The boundary of the acceptable risk zone corresponds to the level of losses equal to estimated profit. Critical risk zone - the area of ​​possible losses exceeding the amount of expected profit up to the value of the total estimated revenue (the sum of costs and profit). Here, the entrepreneur runs the risk of not only not receiving any income, but also incurring direct losses in the amount of all costs incurred.

Catastrophic risk zone - the area of ​​probable losses that exceed the critical level and can reach a value equal to equity organizations. A catastrophic risk can lead an organization or entrepreneur to collapse and bankruptcy. In addition, the category of catastrophic risk (regardless of the amount of property damage) should include the risk associated with a threat to life or health of people and the occurrence of economic disasters. A visual representation of the level of commercial risk is given by a graphical representation of the dependence of the probability of losses on their magnitude - the risk curve (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Risk curve.

The construction of such a curve is based on the hypothesis that profit as a random variable is subject to the normal distribution law and involves the following assumptions.

1. Most likely to receive a profit equal to the calculated value - Pr. The probability (Bp) of obtaining such a profit is maximum and the value of P can be considered mathematical expectation arrived. The probability of making a profit, greater or less than the calculated one, decreases monotonically as deviations increase.

2. Losses are considered to be a decrease in profit (ΔP) in comparison with the calculated value. If real profit is P, then ΔP = Pr - P.

The assumptions made are controversial to a certain extent and not always valid for all types of risks, but on the whole they quite correctly reflect the most general patterns of changes in commercial risk and make it possible to construct a profit loss probability distribution curve, which is called the risk curve (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Profit loss probability distribution curve.

The main thing in assessing commercial risk is the ability to build a risk curve and determine zones and indicators of acceptable, critical and catastrophic risks. Thus, the risk analysis process includes the following stages:

Creation of a predictive model;

Definition of risk variables;

Determining the probability distribution of the selected variables and determining the range of possible values ​​for each of them;

Establishing the presence or absence of correlations among risk variables;

Model runs;

Analysis of results.

risk variables. These are variables that are critical to the viability of the project, i.e. even small deviations from its expected value negatively affect the project. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis is used to select variables. Sensitivity analysis measures the response of project results to changes in a particular project variable.

Uncertainty analysis helps to highlight high-risk variables. The set of expected values ​​of the variable should be wide enough, but with boundaries: minimum and maximum values. Thus, a range of possible values ​​is set for each risk variable. Two main categories of probability distribution can be distinguished: 1) normal, uniform and triangular distributions (they spread the probability within the same range, but with different degrees of concentration relative to the average values). These types of distribution are called symmetric; 2) stepwise and discrete distributions. With a discrete distribution, range intervals are allocated, each of which is assigned a certain probability weight in a stepwise manner (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Probability distribution.

correlated variables. Determination of risk variables and giving them an appropriate probability distribution is a necessary condition for risk analysis. Upon successful completion of these two stages of analysis, with a reliable computer program you can go to the modeling stage. At this stage, the computer generates a series of scenarios based on random numbers generated using specified probability distributions.

To analyze the available data, regression and correlation are usually used to make it easier to predict the dependent variable from the actual or hypothetical values ​​of the independent variable. As a result of such analyzes, a regression equation and a correlation coefficient are derived. For risk analysis, this is just the initial data, and the result is the information generated during the simulation. The task of correlation analysis in relation to risk analysis is to control the values ​​of the dependent variable, allowing you to maintain correspondence with the opposite values ​​of the independent variable.

Statistical;

Expert assessments;

Analytical;

Combined method.

1.2. Method of expert assessments

This method involves the collection and study of assessments made by various experts (of the enterprise or external experts) regarding the probability of occurrence of various levels of losses. Estimates are based on taking into account all financial risk factors, as well as on statistical data. The implementation of the method of expert assessments is much more complicated if the number of assessment indicators is small.

The variant and probable nature of many project processes enhances the role of expert judgment in determining the economic and financial indicators. Such estimates are used quite regularly both in domestic and foreign practice. During the transition period, the role of expert opinions in determining the relevant indicators increases significantly, since the indicators used for calculation are not directive. Appropriate expert assessment can be obtained both after conducting special studies and using the accumulated experience of leading experts. The increase in risk in the implementation of the project requires a more thorough assessment of the critical moments of its implementation. Many initial indicators, often competing with each other, involve the use of expert assessments to construct a project quality criterion. Therefore, the investment assessment system in modern conditions, by necessity, becomes “human-algorithmic”, and the role of a human expert is decisive. Expert assessment is the opinion of experts on a specific issue identified by a special methodology. An expert assessment is necessary for making a decision at the stage of preparation of the PTES. But already in the feasibility study, the number of expert assessments should be minimal. Staged risk assessment is based on the fact that the risks are determined for each stage of the project separately, and then the total result for the entire project is found. Usually, in each project, the following stages are distinguished: preparatory (fulfillment of the entire range of works necessary to start the project); construction (construction of necessary buildings and structures, purchase and installation of equipment); functioning (bringing the project to full capacity and making a profit). The nature of an investment project as something done on an individual basis essentially leaves the only possibility for assessing risk values ​​- the use of expert opinions. Each expert, working separately, is presented with a list of primary risks for all stages of the project and is invited to assess the likelihood of risks occurring in accordance with the following rating system:

0 - the risk is considered insignificant;

25 - the risk is most likely not realized;

50 - nothing definite about the occurrence of the event

cannot be said;

75 - the risk is most likely to manifest itself;

100 - the risk is realized.

Expert evaluations are subjected to consistency analysis, which is performed according to certain rules. Firstly, the maximum allowable difference between the estimates of two experts for any factor should not exceed 50. Comparisons are made modulo (plus or minus sign is not taken into account), which allows eliminating unacceptable differences in experts' estimates of the likelihood of a particular risk. If the number of experts is more than three, then pairwise comparable opinions are evaluated. Secondly, to assess the consistency of expert opinions on the entire set of risks, a pair of experts is identified whose opinions differ most. For calculations, the assessment discrepancies are summed modulo and the result is divided by the number of simple risks. The quotient of division should not exceed 25. If contradictions are found between the opinions of experts (at least one of the above rules is not followed), they are discussed at meetings with experts. In the absence of contradictions, all expert estimates are reduced to the average (arithmetic mean), which is used in further calculations. A separate problem is the justification and evaluation of priorities. Its essence lies in the need to free experts who assess the probability of risk from assessing the importance of each individual event for the entire project. This work should be carried out by the project developers, namely the team that prepares the list of risks to be assessed. The task of the experts is to give an assessment of the risks. After determining the probabilities for simple risks (obtaining an average expert assessment), it is necessary to obtain an integral risk assessment of the entire project. To do this, the risks of each sub-stage or composition of the stages are first calculated: functioning, financial and economic, technological, social and environmental. Then the risks of each stage are calculated - preparatory, construction, functioning.

Another important method of risk research is modeling the choice problem using a "decision tree". This method involves the graphical construction of decision options that can be taken. The branches of the "tree" correlate subjective and objective assessments of possible events. Following along the constructed branches and using special methods for calculating probabilities, each path is evaluated and then the less risky one is chosen.

2. Analysis of external risk at the research and production enterprise "Samara Horizons"

Under the analysis of external risk is understood as an assessment of the degree of influence of the external environment on the activities of the enterprise. For this, developed mathematical model and methodology for calculating the integral indicator of environmental impact Rou, and also shows the relationship of this indicator with the choice of the optimal strategy for the development of the organization.

1. Expertly, from the entire set of external risk factors, a set of basic factors that are most significant for the enterprise are distinguished: political, economic, social, scientific and technical, environmental. Other factors are added according to the scope of the business.

2. Compose the basic equation for calculating the integral indicator of the impact of the external environment R out :

, (1)

where w i- specific weight (significance) of the indicator (); x i- an indicator characterizing the degree of risk (basic factor); M– the number of considered risk-forming components of the macroeconomic environment, i.e. underlying risk factors.

In paragraph 1, five basic factors are identified, therefore, M = 5.

3. Based on the methods for assessing the importance of the criterion (simple ranking method, pairwise comparison method, etc.), the weights (significance) of each basic factor are determined. If all factors are of equal importance (equally preferred or there is no preference system), then

w i = 1/ M =1/5 = 0.2.(2)

4. For each basic factor, a subset of constituent factors (C-factors) is distinguished by expert means. For example, for the basic factor "Environmental" three C-factors have been identified (Table 1).

5. Based expert methods and methods for assessing the importance of the criterion determine the level (expectancy of manifestation) of each C-factor and its weight relative to the base factor (see Table 1).

6. Based on the matrix aggregation scheme, an aggregated indicator is calculated for each basic factor. In order to use the matrix aggregation scheme, the linguistic variable "Factor level" is introduced with the term-set of values T 1 = "Very Low, Low, Acceptable, High, Very High" or T 2 = "Low, Acceptable, High". As a carrier x linguistic variable is a segment of the real axis - 01-carrier .

Table 1 - Weights and expected C-factors for basic

factor "Environmental"

We also introduce a system of five (three) corresponding membership functions m i ( x) of a trapezoid type (analytical representation (Table 2)) and a set nodal points a j = (0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9) for T 1 or a j = (0.1, 0.5, 0.9) for T 2 , which are the abscissas of the maxima of the corresponding membership functions on the 01-support, are uniformly separated from each other on the 01-support and are symmetrical with respect to node 0.5.

Then the linguistic variable "Level of the factor", defined on the 01-carrier, together with the set of nodal points is called standard five-level (three-level) fuzzy 01-classifier .

The quantitative value of the aggregated base factor is determined by the double convolution formula:

, (3)

where a j are the nodal points of the standard five-level classifier, pi- weight i - th factor in the convolution, m ij (x i) is the value of the membership function j - th quality level relative to the current value i - th factor.

Level recognition by (4.1–4.5) or (5.1–5.3) shows that From 1 is clearly an average level; From 2- with a degree of confidence of 0.5 is medium, and with the same confidence - high. Level recognition From 3 gives an unambiguous recognition of this level as low (Table 3).

Table 2 - Analytical representation of functions

accessories for T 1 and T 2

Table 3 - Recognition of the level of C-factors on a standard

five-level 01 classifier

During the calculation by the matrix from Table 3, the following result was obtained:

0.2*1*0.5+0.5*(0.5*0.5+0.5*0.7)+0.3*1*0.3 = 0.1+0.3+0.09 = 0.49.

Similarly, a matrix convolution is carried out for all basic risk-forming factors, as a result, aggregated indicators characterizing the degree of risk are obtained to calculate the integral indicator of the impact of the external environment R out .

7. Let's calculate the integral indicator of the degree of influence of the external environment R out according to a slightly modified formula (1):

, (6)

where is the aggregate indicator for i - mu basic factor.

8. Based on a five-level or three-level classifier, a recognition procedure is performed R out(table 4).

The external environment changes its state over time. Its high dynamism and the uncertainty of influencing factors require huge resources to build the capacity to counter threats. In this regard, the enterprise, in order to maintain the main parameters of its activities, create prerequisites for development and increase efficiency, can to forecast the impact of the macroeconomic environment based on the calculation of the integral indicator.

Table 4 - Classification of the level of the integral indicator
environmental impact based on fuzzy 01-classifiers

This makes it possible to adapt to new conditions in time and, accordingly, plan and carry out their activities according to one of the pre-developed scenarios. Table 5 presents the possible values ​​of the indicator of trends in the change in the macroeconomic environment on the scale [-1;+1] - TPmax, as well as the corresponding scenarios.

Table 5 - Indicators of trends in the macroeconomic environment

The dependence of the development scenario on the integral indicator of the impact of the external environment is shown in the figure. The abscissa axis is the value of the indicator R outн, the y-axis is the indicator TPmax н[–1;+1].

dependency graph R out and TPmax

For instance, R out Î corresponds to an acceptable level (see Table 4). On this interval, in turn, TPmax takes values ​​from the range [–0.3; +0.3], which corresponds to the stabilization scenario (see Table 5). R out Î positions the high level of the indicator (see Table 4), which is responsible for the moderately pessimistic scenario: the closer R out to one, the more pessimism. On the contrary, more optimistic scenarios correspond to a lower integral indicator of the impact of the external environment.

2.1. Approbation of the developed model

Experience number 1. Stages of modeling according to the method

1. The division of external risk-forming factors into: political, scientific and technical, socio-economic and environmental factors is taken as a basis (Table 6). Expert estimates and weights are calculated as of 2009. Additional studies have not been conducted.

Table 6 - Factors economic risk in activity

production enterprise (source: R.M. Kachalov)

at lower cost

(0 - impossible, 10 - very real)

Mastering the production of a replacement product by competitors

(0 - impossible, 10 - very real)

R out :

Table 7 gives the decoding of the designations from formula (7).

Table 7 - Names of basic factors x i and the weights of the factors w i for formula (7)

3. The weights (significance) of each basic factor are presented in Table 7. The factors are equivalent, the calculation is made according to the formula (2).

4. The contributory factors (C-factors) for each base factor are presented in Table 6.

5. Expert assessments, weights and probabilities of C-factors are shown in Table 6.

6. Table 8 shows the results of calculating the aggregated indicator for each basic factor.

Table 8 - The results of the calculation of the aggregated indicator

for each underlying factor x i

R out :

– for a five-level classifier

– for a three-level classifier 8. Table 9 shows the recognition results R out based on three-level and five-level classifiers.

Table 9 - Recognition results R out based

Additionally, the TPmax indicator was calculated, which characterizes the general trend in the change in the macroeconomic environment for the selected risk factors. The result of its evaluation at a given level R out is also presented in Table 9. In both cases, the trend of change in the macroeconomic environment is characterized by a lack of dynamics of change, it is recommended to choose a stabilization (prerequisites for development and increase in efficiency) scenario for the development of the organization.

2. Stages of modeling according to the method

1. The division of external risk-forming factors into: political, scientific, technical and environmental factors is taken as a basis (see table 6). Socio-economic factors are divided into two groups: social and economic. Expert estimates and weights are calculated as of November 2009 (Table 10). Specialists of CJSC NPP Samara Horizons, Samara, Samara Region, Russian Federation, took part in the examination.

Table 10 - Expert assessments and weights of risky

factors

2. Basic equation for calculating the integral indicator of environmental impact R out :

Table 11 gives the decoding of the designations from formula (8).

Table 11 - Names of basic factors x i and the weights of the factors w i for formula (8)

3. The weights (significance) of each basic factor are presented in Table 11. The column "Factor weight" is divided into three parts: the left one - all factors are equivalent, the calculation is made according to the formula (2); medium - the factors are strictly ranked, the weights are calculated by the Fishburn method (formula (9)); right - the weights of the factors are set manually with an explicit indication of preference:

. (9)

4. The contributory factors (C-factors) for each base factor are presented in Table 10.

5. Expert assessments and weights of C-factors are shown in Table 10.

6. Table 12 shows the results of calculating the aggregated indicator for each basic factor, depending on the selected type of 01-classifier.

Table 12 - The results of calculating the aggregated indicator for each basic factor x i

7. Results of calculating the integral indicator of the degree of influence of the external environment R out depending on the choice of method for calculating the weights and the type of classifier are presented in Table 13.

Table 13 - Calculation results R out

8. Tables 14 and 15 show the recognition results R out R out also presented in tables 14 and 15.

Table 14 - Recognition results R out based

three-level classifier

Table 15 - Recognition results R out based

five-level classifier

Analysis of the results allows us to conclude that, depending on the choice of the type of the 01-classifier, the indicator of environmental impact is defined as low or acceptable. The trend in the macroeconomic environment is characterized by positive dynamics or stability. It is recommended to choose a moderately optimistic scenario for the development of the enterprise. For reinsurance, you can choose a stabilization scenario of development. The final choice depends on the decision maker.

Experience number 3. retrospective

1. The division of external risk-forming factors into: political, scientific and technical, socio-economic and environmental factors is taken as a basis (see table 6). Expert estimates and weights are calculated as of 2009 (Table 16). Specialists of CJSC NPP "Samara Horizons" took part in the examination.

Table 16 - Expert assessments and weights of risky

factors

2. The basic equation for calculating the integral indicator of the environmental impact is formula (7).

Table 17 gives the decoding of the symbols from formula (7).

Table 17 - Names of basic factors x i and the weights of the factors w i for formula (7)

3. The weights (significance) of each basic factor are presented in Table 17. The factors were strictly ranked, the calculation was made according to the Fishburn method (formula (9)).

4. The contributory factors (C-factors) for each base factor are presented in Table 16.

5. Expert assessments, weights and probabilities of C-factors are shown in Table 16.

6. Table 18 shows the results of calculating the aggregated indicator for each basic factor x i .

Table 18 - The results of calculating the aggregated indicator for each basic factor x i

7. The result of calculating the integral indicator of the degree of influence of the external environment R out :

– for a three-level classifier;

– for a five-level classifier.

8. Table 19 shows the recognition results R out based on three-level and five-level classifiers. Additionally, the TPmax indicator was calculated, which characterizes the general trend in the change in the macroeconomic environment for the selected risk factors. The result of its evaluation at a given level R out is also presented in Table 19. In both cases, the trend in macroeconomic environment change is characterized as negative for some environmental factors. It is recommended to choose a moderately pessimistic scenario for the development of the organization. On the whole, this does not contradict historical data - the political and economic situation in the country is extremely tense.

Table 19 - Recognition results R out based

three-level and five-level classifiers

Approbation of the developed model for calculating the integral indicator of environmental impact for historical conditions (experiment No. 1 and No. 3) allows us to conclude that the obtained modeling results are consistent and, therefore, that the model itself is adequate.

Conclusion

In general, the use of the expert method of risk assessment makes it possible to visually trace the influence of individual initial factors on the final result of the project, identify the most significant risk factors at the preliminary stage, and take actions to minimize them.

Majority management decisions taken under conditions of risk, which is due to a number of factors: the lack of complete information, the presence of opposing tendencies, elements of chance, and many others. In the conditions of Russian instability, the problem of risk is of great importance in substantiating managerial decisions not only of a strategic nature, but also at the stage of short-term planning. In this regard, the problem of assessing the risks of financial and economic activities of enterprises acquires independent theoretical and applied significance as an important one. component theory and practice of management. Risk should be understood as a consequence of an action or inaction, as a result of which there is a real possibility of obtaining uncertain results of a different nature, both positively and negatively affecting the financial and economic activities of the enterprise. Most researchers note that enterprises should not avoid risk at the decision-making stage, but should be able to competently and professionally manage it. For this, a risk analysis is carried out. The purpose of risk analysis is to provide potential partners with the necessary data to make decisions about the appropriateness of participating in the project and provide for measures to protect against possible financial losses.

Currently, the following methods of risk analysis are the most common:

Statistical;

Expert assessments;

Analytical;

Assessment of financial stability and solvency;

Cost feasibility assessments;

Analysis of the consequences of risk accumulation;

Method of using analogues;

Combined method.

The peer review method differs in the way information is collected to build the risk curve. This method involves the collection and study of estimates made by various experts (in the enterprise or external experts) regarding the probability of occurrence of various levels of losses. Estimates are based on taking into account all financial risk factors, as well as on statistical data.

In the process of work, an analysis of the external risk was carried out. Under the analysis of external risk is understood as an assessment of the degree of influence of the external environment on the activities of the enterprise. For this, a mathematical model and a method for calculating the integral indicator of the impact of the external environment have been developed. Rou, and also shows the relationship of this indicator with the choice of the optimal strategy for the development of the organization. The external environment changes its state over time. Its high dynamism and the uncertainty of influencing factors require huge resources to build the capacity to counter threats. In this regard, in order to preserve the main parameters of its activities, create prerequisites for development and increase efficiency, an enterprise can forecast the impact of the macroeconomic environment based on the calculation of an integral indicator.

Bibliography

1. Algin A.P. Risk and its role in public life. - M.: Thought, 2004.

2. Algin A.M. Facets of economic risk. - M.: Knowledge, 2005.

3. Balabanov I. T. Risk management. - M.: Finance and statistics, 2006.

4. Blank I.A. Investment management: Training course. - K .: Elga-N, Nika-Center, 2005.

5. Grabovy P.G., Petrova S.I. Risks in modern business. - M.: ALANS, 2004.

6. Granaturov V. M. Economic risk. Essence, methods of measurement, ways of reduction. Business and Service, 2005.

7. Granaturov V.M. economic risk. - M.: Business and service, 2008.

8. Degtyareva O.I., Kandinsky O.A. Exchange business. - M.: UNITI, 2009.

16. Reisberg BA. Entrepreneurship and risk. - M.: INFRA-M, 2006.

17. Redhead K, Hughes S. Management of financial markets. - M.: INFRA-M, 2006.

18. Risks in modern business / P.G. Grabovoi and others - M .: Alans Publishing House, 2004.

19. Risks in the foreign economic activity of enterprises. /V.P. Bocharnikov, S.M. Repetsky and DR. - Kiev: "INEKS", 2007.

20. Roik V.D. Occupational risks: assessment; control; insurance. M., 2004.

21. Tepman L.N. Risks in the economy. Moscow: Unity-Dana, 2005.

22. Ustenko O.L. Theory of economic risk: Monograph. – K.: MAUP, 2007.

23. Fishburne P. Theory of utility for decision making. – M.: Nauka, 2008.

24. Khokhlov N.V. Risk management. - M.: Publishing house of UNITI, 2004.

25. Shapiro V.D. etc. Project management. - St. Petersburg: "TwoThree", 2005.

26. Shapkin A.S. Economic and financial risks. Evaluation, management, investment portfolio. Moscow: Dashkov i Ko, 2004.

Expert risk analysis is used at the initial stages of working with a project if the amount of initial information is insufficient to quantify the effectiveness (the error of the results exceeds 30%) and project risks.

The advantages of expert risk analysis are: no need for accurate initial data and expensive software tools, the ability to evaluate before calculating the effectiveness of the project, as well as the simplicity of calculations. The main disadvantages include: the difficulty in attracting independent experts and the subjectivity of assessments.

The experts involved in the risk assessment should:

• - have access to all information about the project available to the developer;
• - have a sufficient level of creative thinking;
• - have the necessary level of knowledge in the relevant subject area;
• - be free from personal preferences regarding the project.

The expert method of risk assessment is based on the generalization of the thoughts of experienced entrepreneurs and specialists. At the same time, experts should supplement their own estimates with data on the probability of different sizes of losses.

The essence of this method is as follows:

• all possible causes (sources) of investment risk are identified;
• All identified causes are ranked according to the degree of significance (influence on investment risk), and for each of them a certain score and a weighting factor in fractions of a unit are set;
• A generalized risk assessment is determined by multiplying the value of each cause in points by a weighting factor and summing them according to the formula

where P and- generalized risk assessment;

d i- weighty coefficient of each reason of investment risk;

Z i- the absolute value of each cause in points.

Usually, the absolute value in points ranges from 1 to 10 or from 1 to 100, but most often from 1 to 10.

As the value approaches P and to unity, the value of investment risk decreases and vice versa.

The expert risk analysis algorithm has the following sequence:

• 1) for each type of risk, the maximum level acceptable for the organization implementing this project is determined. The maximum level of risks is determined on a 100-point scale;
• 2) if necessary, a differentiated assessment of the level of expertise of experts is established, which is confidential. The score is given on a 10-point scale;
• 3) risks are assessed by experts in terms of the likelihood of a risk event (in fractions of a unit) and the danger of these risks for the successful completion of the project (on a 100-point scale);
• 4) estimates put down by experts for each type of risk are summarized by the project developer in tables. They define the integral level for each type of risk.
• 5) the integral level of risks obtained as a result of an expert survey and the limit level for a given type of risk are compared, and a decision is made on the acceptability of this type of risk for the project developer. If the accepted limit level of one or several types of risks is lower than the obtained integral values, a set of measures is developed aimed at reducing the impact of the identified risks on the success of the project, and a re-analysis of the risks is carried out.

The expert risk assessment method consists of five stages.

Table 2.1 - The content of the stages of expert assessment of investment risks

Stage 1. At the first stage, an exhaustive list of risks is formed. Such a list should be compiled by relevant specialists - builders, technologists, economists, lawyers who are involved in the development, operation of the project, and have relevant experience with similar projects. It is advisable to group the exhaustive list into thematic groups - technological risks, financial and economic, socio-political, commercial and the like.

Stage 2. Each expert, who works individually, is provided with an exhaustive list of simple risks for all stages of projects, and is asked to evaluate them, guided by the following rating system:

• 0 - the risk is considered insignificant;
• 25 - the risk is most likely not realized;
• 50 - nothing definite can be said about the onset of the event;
• 75 - the risk is likely to manifest itself;
• 100 - risk confidence is high.

Stage 3. Contradictions in the assessments of experts are determined. For this, the following rules apply.

1. The maximum allowable difference in marks between two experts should not exceed 50:

2. Allows you to find a pair of experts whose thoughts have the greatest divergence:

where a i , b i- estimates i- th simple risk by experts a and b, respectively; N- the number of simple risks.

In the event that there are contradictions between the thoughts of experts, that is, at least one of the rules is not followed, they are discussed and agreed upon at an open meeting of experts.

Stage 4. Individual assessments of experts are combined into a single one. Each consolidated expert assessment of the probability of simple risks should be weighted against it, which gives an idea of ​​the importance of each estimated event for the project as a whole. This work should be carried out by project developers, that is, those who prepare an exhaustive list of risks.

Stage 5. An integrated risk assessment of projects is determined. Such an assessment, in turn, is carried out in two stages:

• - an assessment is determined for each of the stages of the investment project, having previously calculated the risks for individual substages;
• - a risk assessment for the entire project is determined.

It is also possible to combine statistical and expert methods, that is, a combined risk assessment method can be used.

2.3. Expert risk assessment methods

The general scheme of expert surveys includes the following main stages:

1) selection of experts and formation of expert groups;

2) formation of questions and compilation of questionnaires;

3) work with experts;

4) formation of rules for determining the total marks based on the marks of individual experts;

5) analysis and processing of expert assessments.

At the first stage, based on the objectives of the expert survey, issues are resolved regarding the structure of the expert group, the number of experts and their individual qualities, i.e. the requirements for the specialization and qualification of experts, the required number of experts of each specialization and their total number in the group are determined.

Estimates of the size of the expert group are made on the basis of the following considerations.

The size of the group should not be small, since in this case the meaning of the formation of expert assessments determined by a group of specialists will be lost. In addition, group peer reviews would be heavily influenced by the score of each peer.

With an increase in the group of experts, although these shortcomings are eliminated, there is a danger of the emergence of new ones. So, with a very large number of experts, the assessment of each of them individually has almost no effect on the group assessment. Moreover, the increase in the size of the expert group does not always lead to an increase in the reliability of estimates. Often, the expansion of a group of experts is possible only at the expense of low-skilled specialists, which in turn can lead to a decrease in the reliability of group estimates. Simultaneously with the growth in the number of experts, the difficulties associated with coordinating the work of the group and processing the results of the survey increase. It should be noted that when finding estimates by expert means, in addition to the error introduced by the lack of information about the object under study and the insufficient competence of experts, an error of a completely different kind is possible, due to the interest of experts in the results of the examination, which will necessarily affect their reliability. The presence of such errors can significantly distort the estimates.

The elimination of these shortcomings is achieved by using appropriate methods and, first of all, through the correct organization of the expert procedure, from the selection of experts to the processing of their opinions.

The characteristic features of the methods of expert assessments and models for their implementation as a tool for the scientific solution of complex non-formalizable problems are, firstly, the scientifically based organization of all stages of the examination, ensuring the efficiency of work at each of the stages and, secondly, the use of quantitative methods as in the organization of the examination, and when evaluating the judgments of experts on the basis of formal group processing of the results of their opinions. These features distinguish the methods of expert assessments from the usual, long-known expertise used in various fields of human activity.

When selecting experts, the restriction regarding the correspondence of the goals of the experts to the goals of the expert survey should be taken into account, i.e. it is necessary to establish whether there is a tendency for individual experts to bias the events under consideration. To do this, it is desirable to identify potential possible goals of experts that contradict the goals of obtaining objective results.

Analyzing the previous activities of experts, it is necessary to find out the reasons that lead to the desire to overestimate or underestimate the assessments in such a way as to influence group assessments in a direction desirable for oneself or for other persons.

The main methods of expert assessments are the following:

1) methods of collective work of the expert group;

2) methods for obtaining individual opinions of members of the expert group.

Teamwork Methods expert group involve the formation of a common opinion in the course of a joint discussion of the consequences entrepreneurial activity. These methods are sometimes referred to as direct collective opinion methods. These include brainstorming, scripting, business games, meetings and "court".

Methods for obtaining an individual opinion members of the expert group are based on the preliminary collection of information from experts interviewed independently of each other, with subsequent processing of the data obtained. These methods include methods of questionnaire survey, interview, Delphi.

The means of collecting information from experts is a questionnaire - a questionnaire that must meet a number of requirements such as simplicity and unambiguity in understanding the text, brevity of presentation, completeness of presentation, illustrativeness, uniformity.

The survey of experts is carried out in accordance with the chosen method of expert assessments. Among the methods of expert assessments as a scientific tool for difficult-to-formalizable tasks of business risk analysis, the most acceptable method is the Delphi method, or the method of the Delphi oracle. This method represents an iterative questionnaire procedure. At the same time, the requirement of the absence of personal contacts between experts and providing them with complete information on all the results of assessments after each round of the survey is observed, while maintaining the anonymity of assessments, arguments and criticism.

The procedure of the method includes several successive stages (rounds) of the survey. At the first stage, an individual survey of experts is conducted, usually in the form of questionnaires. Experts give answers without arguing them. Then the results of the survey are processed, and the collective opinion of the group of experts is formed, the arguments in favor of various judgments are identified and generalized. At the second stage, all information is communicated to the experts, and they are asked to revise their assessments and, if they disagree with the collective judgment, explain its reasons. The new estimates are processed again and the transition to the next stage is carried out. Practice shows that after three or four stages, the experts' answers stabilize, and the survey procedure should be terminated at this point.

The advantage of the Delphi method is the use of feedback during the survey, which significantly increases the objectivity and reliability of expert assessments of the degree of risk. However, this method requires considerable time to implement the entire multi-stage procedure.

The processing of the results of the received expert information is determined by the method of its receipt and the type of presentation (qualitative, quantitative). When processing expert information, the tasks of assessing are set: the collective opinion of the expert group; consistency of expert opinions; expert competence. When solving the first problem, if there is the necessary information potential, methods of mathematical statistics based on data averaging are used. If the information potential is insufficient, the processing of the results is based on methods qualitative analysis.

If there is information potential, the collective opinion of the expert group can be expressed in the following forms:

1) quantitative assessments in physical units of measurement or in the form of a ratio;

2) scores;

3) pairwise comparisons;

4) groupings (sorting);

5) ranking.

The rules for questioning experts contain a number of provisions that are mandatory for everyone. These rules should ensure that the conditions conducive to the formation of an objective opinion by experts are observed. These conditions include:

1) the independence of the formation by experts of their own opinion about the events being assessed;

2) the convenience of working with the proposed questionnaires (questions are formulated in generally accepted terms and should exclude any semantic ambiguity, etc.);

3) logical correspondence of questions to the structure of the object of the survey;

4) acceptable time spent on answering the questions of the questionnaire, convenient time for receiving questions and issuing answers;

5) maintaining anonymity of answers for members of the expert group;

6) providing experts with the required information.

To ensure that these conditions are met, rules for conducting the survey and organizing the work of the expert group should be developed.

Depending on the nature of the object under study, on the degree of its formalization and the possibility of attracting the necessary experts, the procedure for working with them may be different, but basically it consists of the following 3 stages.

At the first stage, experts are involved on an individual basis in order to clarify the object model, its parameters and indicators subject to expert evaluation; clarify the wording of questions and terminology in the questionnaires; agree on the feasibility of one or another form of presentation of tables of expert assessments; clarify expert groups.

At the second stage, questionnaires are sent to the experts with an explanatory letter, which describes the purpose of the work, the structure and procedure for constructing tables with examples.

If it is possible to bring experts together, then the goals and objectives of the survey, as well as all questions related to the survey, can be stated orally. Required condition This form of expert survey is the subsequent self-filling of questionnaires subject to the rules of the survey.

The third stage of work with experts is carried out after receiving the results of the survey in the process of processing and analyzing the results.

At this stage, in the form of a consultation, experts usually receive all the necessary information that is required to refine the data and their final analysis.

Rational use of information received from experts is possible if it is converted into a form convenient for further analysis aimed at preparing and making decisions.

There are several ways to use an expert group. One of them (the method of ratings matching) is that each expert gives an assessment independently of the others, and then, using certain techniques, these assessments are combined into one generalized (agreed) one.

For example, if we are talking about the probability of a risk event (p) and i-th expert indicates the number pi for this probability, then simplest way obtaining a generalized estimate consists in calculating the average probability:

where m is the number of experts participating in the examination.

In the Delphi method, the median of the assessments of the last round of the expert survey is taken as a generalized opinion.

You can also calculate the weighted average of the probability if you try to take into account the weight (competence) of the expert himself, which is determined on the basis of previous activities (the number of correct answers to the total number), or on the basis of other methods - self-assessment by the expert of his knowledge in the field of questions asked, qualifications, position , academic title, etc.:

where h is the weight attributed to the i-th expert.

There are various methods for assessing the competence of an expert, the choice of which is determined both by the nature of the problem being solved and the possibilities of conducting a specific expert survey. In the general case, the values ​​of the weight attributed to the i-th expert are interpreted as the probability of giving them a reliable estimate. In this case 0< h < 1.

Depending on the specifics of the expert survey, the object of study and the methodology used for processing expert data, the estimates given by experts may have a different measurement scale: from 0 to 1, from 0 to 10, from 0 to 100. insurance risk assessment uses a scale from 0 to 100 points. At the same time, there is no fundamental difference in the measurement scales; the choice of one or another of them is largely determined by the taste of the researcher conducting the expert survey. The accepted scale of measurement can to some extent influence the choice of methods for analyzing and processing expert opinions.

When analyzing the collected expert data in accordance with the objectives of the study and the accepted models, it is necessary to present the information received from the experts in a form convenient for decision-making (order the objects - options, indicators, factors, etc.), and also determine the consistency of the actions of the experts and reliability of expert assessments.

So, for example, the risks identified in the process of qualitative analysis must be presented in order of their importance (the degree of their possible impact on the level of losses) or risk reduction options - in order of their preference, etc.

There are a number of ordering methods, each of which has its own advantages and disadvantages, as well as the area of ​​effective application. The most common of these are ranking, direct evaluation, sequential comparison, pairwise comparison.

An important point of expert procedures is the assessment of the consistency of the actions of experts and the reliability of expert assessments.

As noted, the existing methods for determining the reliability of expert assessments are based on the assumption that if the actions of experts are coordinated, the reliability of assessments is guaranteed.

Most often, for these purposes, the concordance (consent) coefficient is used, the value of which makes it possible to judge the degree of agreement between the opinions of experts and, as a result, the reliability of their assessments. The concordance coefficient (W) is determined from the expression:

where: q 2 ? is the actual variance of the total (ordered) estimates given by the experts;

q 2 max is the variance of the total (ordered) estimates in the case when the opinions of experts completely coincide.

The value of the concordance coefficient can vary from 0 to 1. At W = 0, there is no consistency; there is no connection between the assessments of various experts. At W = 1, the consensus of experts' opinions is complete.

To make a decision on the use of estimates received from experts, it is necessary that the concordance coefficient be greater than the specified (normative) value. You can take W = 0.5. It is believed that when W is greater than 0.5, the actions of experts are more coordinated than not coordinated.

Consider the definition of the concordance coefficient in the following simplified example. Let the process of qualitative analysis identify 5 types of risk that the project may be exposed to in the process of its implementation. The experts are faced with the task of ranking these risks (in order of their importance) according to the degree of their possible impact on the level of losses.

In the general case, the concordance coefficient is determined from the expression:

where a is the score assigned to the i-th object by the j-th expert;

m is the number of evaluated objects;

n is the number of experts.

Criteria are also used to assess the likelihood that the consensus of experts was not the result of random variations in their opinions.

If, in accordance with the accepted criteria, the opinions of experts can be considered agreed, then the assessments given by them are accepted and used in the process of preparing and implementing management decisions.

It is known that the average value of the total score for m objects assigned by n experts is 1/2n (m + l).