• International Journal of Technology (IJTech)
  • Vol 11, No 6 (2020)

Digital Experience: How to Find a Tool for Evaluating Business Economic Risk

Digital Experience: How to Find a Tool for Evaluating Business Economic Risk

Title: Digital Experience: How to Find a Tool for Evaluating Business Economic Risk
Igor Lyukevich, Anton Agranov, Nadezhda Lvova, Liudmila Guzikova

Corresponding email:

Cite this article as:
Lyukevich, I., Agranov, A., Lvova, N., Guzikova, L., 2020. Digital Experience: How to Find a Tool for Evaluating Business Economic Risk. International Journal of Technology. Volume 11(6), pp. 1244-1254

Igor Lyukevich Graduate School of Industrial Economics, Institute of Industrial Management, Economics and Trade, Pe-ter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, Politechnicheskaya St., 29, St. Petersburg, 19
Anton Agranov The Faculty of Part-Time Studies Emperor Alexander I St.Petersburg State Transport University, Moskov-sky pr., 9, 190031, Russia
Nadezhda Lvova Department of Theory of Credit and Financial Management St.Petersburg State University, Saint-Petersburg, Universitetskaya nab., 7/9, 199034, Russia
Liudmila Guzikova Graduate School of Industrial Economics, Institute of Industrial Management, Economics and Trade, Pe-ter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, Politechnicheskaya St., 29, St. Petersburg, 19
Email to Corresponding Author

Digital Experience: How to Find a Tool for Evaluating Business Economic Risk

Risk evaluation includes not only quantitative or qualitative assessment but the choice of action that depends on the risk event. The paper highlights key research in the field of risk assessment from 1921 to the present day. The suggested concept of business eco-nomic risk evaluation is substantiated using the criterion of information accessibility. One group of assessment techniques is based on statistical analysis, namely insolvency risk assessment models combined with a group of probabilistic ones. The alternative group includes all techniques that differ from the accumulated data analysis (STAR - Strategic Technology Assessment Review, HAZOP   Hazard and Operability Study, and FMEA   Fail-ure Mode and Effects Analysis qualitative assessments). Scenario, list, and analogies techniques (SWIFT   Structured What If Technique, HACCP   Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, RCA   Root Cause Analysis, BOWTIE, WCS   Worst Case Scenario) are more accurately characterized as an evaluation of conditions and consequences of eco-nomic risks. Based on the advantages and disadvantages of risk assessment techniques, this study proposed a classification of the tools for evaluating business economic risk and an algorithm for choosing a tool appropriate for the situation based on the available information. The possibility and directions of practical implementation, as well as the ex-isting digital assessment tool products, are shown.

Digital experience; Economic risk; Evaluation tool; Qualitative risk assessment; Quantitative risk assessment


Scientific research into the phenomenon of economic risks dates back to the early 20th century. Knight was the first who suggested delineating risk and uncertainty when characterizing probabilistic events in the economic field (Knight, 1921). The next significant work was the study on risk assessment by Neumann and Morgenstern (1944). Formation of adverse outcomes assessment and management science took place in 1950–1990s. Arrow (Nobel Laureate) substantiated the impossibility of describing all risk options and showed that the best way to prepare for the onset of the risk event was to assess the consequences of its occurrence and the costs of eliminating them (Arrow, 1951).     He also proved the theorem (Arrow's paradox) on the lack of techniques for combining individual preferences for three or more alternatives, which would satisfy some completely fair conditions and always gave a logically non-contradictory outcome (Arrow, 1951). Snider formulated the 'risk management' theory in 1955–1956 (Snider, 1991), and Gallagher gave a description of the risk manager profession (Gallagher, 1956).

With the abolition of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates, the area of assessing and hedging risks in financial markets evolved. The works of Merton (1973), as well as Black and Scholes (1973), are seen as the key ones. In 1973, the Geneva Association, which united research in the field of risk economics and risk insurance, was established. In the 1990s, risk management obtained the status of the strategic management paradigm. The concept of the internal risk control necessity was finally formed (COSO, 1992). In the 2010s, debates on the innovation risk assessment system started (Nikolova et al., 2017). In this case, risk minimization directions depended on whether it was relat-ed to the high- or low-tech sector (Rodionov et al., 2018). However, risk management in modern finance is one of the fastest growing but actively criticized areas. In particular, Taleb’s black swan theory vigorously and flatly criticized the practice of financial and economic decisions based on the assumption that risk prevails over uncertainty (Taleb, 2007). Besides, risk assumption is currently prevailing in business management, which defined the perspective of this study.

In case of an unfavorable event, the decision is either to accept the consequences drawing on reserves or to take preventive actions. Thus, business is likely to incur costs either after or before the risk event. At the same time, due to the apparent transformation of all areas of the economy, 'classical' techniques, tools, and criteria are losing their practical significance, and their actualization is necessary with allowance for the processes of digitalization of the economy (Malevskaia-Malevich et al., 2018).

Available estimates suggest that the quality of products increase when a business risk management system is implemented (Hidayatno et al., 2015; Pariaman et al., 2017). It was shown that with a quality increase, the demand curve, in terms of the quantity of the product/product price, shifts to the right, parallel to itself (Demidenko et al., 2017). Efficiency rates are starting to grow. Owners pay more attention to cash flow and real profits than to accounting (Dvas et al., 2018).

Risk research theory and practice have developed a wide variety of approaches, techniques, and models based on both the quantitative and qualitative analysis of business economic risk factors (Gissel et al., 2007). Apart from this, a comprehensive view of the tools and techniques of risk assessment and features of their application have not yet been proposed. Additionally, the problem of finding and choosing a tool that draws a conclusion on the level of business economic risk has not been fully resolved. Risk assessment should not involve economically impractical periods of time and other costs, and conclusions should be properly substantiated.

We assumed that evaluating business economic risk suggests a special methodical toolkit aimed at quantitative or qualitative assessment of this risk, as well as at the choice of one of the alternative options for actions involving the onset of the risk event. The research hypothesis implies that as part of the existing approaches to assessing business economic risks, it is possible to formulate a search algorithm to find the optimal tool to evaluate economic risk, including digital skills use.


        A comprehensive weighty analysis of approaches for evaluating the business economic risk has been carried out. This made it possible to divide the existing approaches into two categories, economic risk evaluation and evaluation of consequences of economic risk, and create a classification of the currently known methods and models for risk evaluation. The peculiarity of this concept is that it includes assessment not only in the context of accessible and relatively transparent information but also in the presence of significant information asymmetry. This gives an expanded view of the business economic risk, which is an original solution, compared to other works in the related field.

        Systematization of methods and models, in turn, explores the digital experience in each area under consideration. Approaches to the practical implementation of STAR, HAZOP, and FMEA, which are qualitative risk assessment methodologies, are also proposed. Identifying the advantages and disadvantages of methods and models generated the algorithm for choosing a tool for evaluating the business eco-nomic risk.

      We agreed that digital experience is currently in progress by means of Industry 4.0 technology (Bataev, 2018; Berawi, 2018), but, at the moment, the main problems of implementation of digitalization are related to national institutional and legal norms, namely to the uncertainty of responsibility (Babkin et al., 2018).

       Most statistical models of economic risk assessment involve obtaining reliable results precisely in the areas for which they were created. Therefore, broad extrapolation under basic conditions (e.g., industry, business scale, etc.) leads to an inaccurate result. Unreliability of reporting will also seriously distort the result (e.g., profits overstatement/ understatement, working capital share, etc.). Thus, it seems that logit and probit models may be modified by describing them as a system of inequalities, setting conditions that the sum of the indices should be above / under the normative value. By solving such a system, it is possible to set requirements for financial indicators, which will ensure the formation of broader financial indicators that reflect various risks.


This research work was supported by the Academic Excellence Project 5-100 proposed by Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University

Supplementary Material
R1-EECE-4466-20201128214249.png Figure_1
R1-EECE-4466-20201128214324.png Figure_2

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), 2019. Root Cause Analysis. Available Online at https://psnet.ahrq.gov/primer/root-cause-analysis, Accessed on July, 25, 2020 

Altman, E., 1968. Financial Ratios, Discriminant Analysis and the Prediction of Corporate Bankruptcy. The Journal of Finance, Volume 23(4), pp. 589–609

Arrow, K., 1951. Alternative Approaches to the Theory of Choice in Risk Taking Situation. Econometrica, Volume 19(4), pp. 404–437

Babkin, A.V., Burkaltseva, D.D., Betskov, A.V., Kilyaskhanov, H.S., Tyulin, A.S., Kurianova, I.V., 2018. Automation Digitalization Blockchain: Trends and Implementation Problems. International Journal of Engineering and Technology (UAE), Volume 7(14), pp. 254–260

Balashova, E.S., Gromova, E.A., 2017. Russian Experience of Integrating Modern Management Models. Espacios, Volume 38(53), pp. 31–33

Bataev, A.V., 2018. Analysis and Development the Digital Economy in the World. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Business Information Management Association/ Conference, Volume 1, pp. 61–71

Beaver, W., 1966. Financial Ratios as Predictors of Failure, Empirical Research in Accounting. Journal of Accounting Research, Volume 4, pp. 71–111

Berawi, M.A., 2018. Improving Business Processes through Advanced Technology Development. International Journal of Technology, Volume 9(4), pp. 641–644

Black, F., Scholes, M., 1973. The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, Volume 81(3), pp. 637–654

Bowtie, 2019. Introduction to Bowtie. Available Online at https://www.caa.co.uk/Safety-initiatives-and-resources/Working-with-industry/Bowtie/About-Bowtie/Introduction-to-bowtie //Accessed on July, 25, 2020

Card, A.J., Ward, J.R., Clarkson, P.J., 2012. Beyond FMEA: The Structured What-if Technique

Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Internal Control — Integrated Framework. Available Online at https://www.coso.org, Accessed on June, 01, 2019

Crawley, F., Tyler, B., 2015. HAZOP: Guide to Best Practice, United Kingdom: Elsevier

Davis, J., Fusfeld, A., Scriven, E., Tritle, G., 2001. Determining a Projects Probability of Success. Research Technology Management, Volume 44(3), pp. 51–57

Demidenko, D.S., Malinin, A.M., Litvinenko, A.N., 2017. A New Classification of the Risks of the Quality Processes. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Business Information Management Association Conference, Volume 1, pp. 147–149

Dvas, G.V., Ivanov, S.A., Dubolazova, Y.A., 2018. Risk Assessment and Risk Management of Innovative Activity of the Enterprise. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Business Information Management Association Conference, Volume 1, pp. 118–119

Fama, E., 1976. Foundations of Finance: Portfolio Decisions and Securities Prices. New York, Basic Books

Gallagher, R., 1956. Risk Management: A New Phase of Cost Control. Harvard Business Review, Volume 34, pp. 75–86

Gissel, J.L., Giacomino, D., Akers, M.D., 2007. A Review of Bankruptcy Prediction Studies: 1930-Present. Accounting Faculty Research and Publications. Available Online at https://epublications.marquette.edu/account_fac/25

HACCP, 2019. HACCP Principles & Application Guidelines. Executive Summary. Available Online at https://www.fda.gov/food/hazard-analysis-critical-control-point-haccp/haccp-principles-application-guidelines#execsum, Accessed on July, 25, 2020

Hidayatno, A., Moeis, A.O., Sutrisno, A., Maulidiah, W., 2015. Risk Impact Analysis on the Investment of Drinking Water Supply System Development using Project Risk Management. International Journal of Technology, Volume 6(5), pp. 894–904

Holton, G., 2014. Value-at-Risk: Theory and Practice. Available Online at https://www.value-at-risk.net, Accessed on July, 25, 2020

Knight, F.H., 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Available Online at https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/books/risk/riskuncertaintyprofit.pdf, Accessed on July, 25, 2020

Lyukevich, I., Agranov, A., 2019. Correction of Originality in Cash Flow Forecasting to Assess Financial Risk. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Volume 497(1), pp. 497–499

Malevskaia-Malevich, E.D., Leonov, S.A., Denis, Z., 2018. Methods for Assessing the Effectiveness of Research and Development. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Business Information Management Association Conference. Volume 1, pp. 5886–5890

Maragakis, I., Clark, S., Piers, M., Prior, C.D., Tripaldi, C., Masson, M., Audard, C., 2009. Guidance on Hazards Identification. European Strategic Safety Initiative. Available Online at https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/ECASTSMSWG-GuidanceonHazardIdentification1.pdf, Accessed on July, 25, 2020 

Mednikov, M.D., Sokolitsyna, N.A., Sokolitsyn, A.S., Semenov V.P., 2017. Game Theory Model of Forming Enterprise Development Strategy in Market Environment Uncertainty. XX IEEE International Conference on Soft Computing and Measurements (SCM), St. Petersburg, Volume 1, pp. 876–878

Merton, R.C., 1973. The Theory of Rational Option Pricing. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, Volume 4(1), pp. 141–183

Neumann, von J., Morgenstern, O., 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior: 60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition Princeton University Press

Nikolova, L.V., Rodionov, D.G., Afanasyeva, N.V., 2017. Impact of Globalization on Innovation Project Risks Estimation. European Research Studies Journal, Volume 20(2), pp. 396–410

Ohlson, J., 1980. Financial Ratios and the Probabilistic Prediction of Bankruptcy. Journal of Accounting Research, Volume 18(1), pp. 109–131

Pariaman, H., Garniwa, I., Surjandari, I., Sugiarto, B., 2017. Availability Analysis of the Integrated Maintenance Technique based on Reliability, Risk, and Condition in Power Plants. International Journal of Technology, Volume 8(3), pp. 497–507

Povolotskaya E., Mach P., 2012. FMEA and FTA Analyses of the Adhesive Joining Process using Electrically Conductive Adhesives. ActaPolytechnica, Volume 52(2), pp. 48–55

Rodionov, D.G., Konnikov, E.A., Konnikova, O.A., 2018. Approaches to Ensuring the Sustainability of Industrial Enterprises of Different Technological Levels. The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Volume 3, pp. 277282

Rudskaya, I., Goncharova, N.L., Temirhanova, M., 2018. Review of the Russian Fintech Market. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Business Information Management Association Conference, Volume 1, pp. 2337–2343

Snider, H.W., 1991. Risk Management: A Retrospective View. Risk Management, Volume 38(4), pp. 47–57

Sutalaksana, I.Z., Zakiyah, S.Z.Z., Widyanti, A., 2019. Linking Basic Human Values, Risk Perception, Risk Behavior and Accident Rates: The Road to Occupational Safety. International Journal of Technology, Volume 10(5), pp. 918–929

Taleb, N., 2007. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House.  Published in the United States., New York

Wilson, P.F., Dell, L.D., Anderson, G.F., 1993. Root Cause Analysis: A Tool for Total Quality Management. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQ Quality Press

Yoe, C., 2019. Principles of Risk Analysis: Decision Making Under Uncertainty. Boca Raton: CRC Press

Zmijewski, M.E., 1984. Methodological Issues Related to the Estimation of Financial Distress Prediction Models. Journal of Accounting Research, Volume 22, pp. 59–82