Chapter 24
Research agenda
The questions the framework leaves open, with the data each needs, the method, and whether it fits a master's thesis, a doctorate or a study inside one organisation. Results that confirm or refute a claim are posted here as they arrive: open an issue labelled result.
| Question | Type | Data needed | Method | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Does a combination rule for the four kinds of number (matrix score, simulated distribution, composite index, likelihood of missing an objective) predict outcomes better than any single reading, while recording its reasons? (chapters 20, 24) | Methodological | Synthetic registers with known true likelihoods; then one organization's register with a calibration record (C5.5) | Simulation study comparing Bayesian updating, outranking, joint simulation and parallel reporting; then a field test | Master's (simulation stage); doctoral (both stages) |
| Which hazards from the dictionary of 281 [24] belong in a sector's subset, and what share of recorded physical losses does the subset capture retrospectively? (chapter 24) | Methodological | Public loss and exposure datasets carrying the hazard codes; the sector mapping of the climate scenarios [13]; a pooled sector loss base where one exists | Exposure scoring per hazard with the composite index arithmetic and reliability [7]; retrospective capture test; residue analysis | Master's (one sector from public data); practitioner (test against own loss base) |
| What must a jurisdictional parameter record contain, and can one for a non-financial sector be derived by analogy from the financial ones? (chapter 24) | Methodological and institutional | Published stress parameters across jurisdictions and sectors; one non-financial organization's stress program | Comparative analysis of published parameters; write and run the record for one organization; report what was invented | Doctoral (comparative); practitioner (one organization) |
| Do later editions of independent sources share more definitions with one another than earlier ones did? (chapters 10, 24) | Institutional | Dated editions of the twenty-seven sources, including the three revisions in progress [1] [21] [2] | Coding each edition for the eight objects and six steps; definitional overlap measured over time | Master's (pilot on five sources); doctoral (full corpus) |
| Do organizations with one register and lens attributes answer cross-cutting questions faster and report more consistent exposures than those with subject-specific registers? (chapters 19, 20) | Empirical | Supervisory thematic reviews; board-pack archives; subsidiaries of one group with both arrangements | Matched comparison on time to answer a defined question and variance of reported exposure | Doctoral (with supervisory cooperation); practitioner (within a group) |
| Do administrative controls decay with time since last test while engineering controls do not? (chapters 12, 17) | Empirical | Control failures with dates in an organization that records hierarchy level (C4.2) | Survival analysis by hierarchy level with time since last test as covariate | Master's (one organization); doctoral (pooled) |
| Is the gap between expected and measured exposure, and between planned and actual response cost, narrower for engineering controls? (chapter 18) | Empirical | Detail records with three exposure snapshots and cost fields (C6.1), joined to control levels | Distribution of the gap by response type and hierarchy level | Master's; practitioner |
| Do limit breaches lead to control changes and tolerance breaches to plan changes, as chapter 15 predicts? | Empirical | Breach records of both kinds; committee minutes and action logs that follow them | Coding of actions taken after each kind of breach; comparison | Master's (with access) |
| Does the appetite position drift toward the measured position where lowering appetite to accommodate tolerated risk is not prohibited? (chapter 15) | Empirical | Appetite statements and risk reports per category over five or more years | Time series per category; comparison of organizations with and without the prohibition | Master's (with access) |
| Do source-organized taxonomies produce fewer rows and more single-owner responses per shared cause than effect-organized ones? (chapter 16) | Empirical | Register exports from organizations with each structure | Identify risks sharing a cause; count rows and owners per cause under each structure | Master's |
| Does linking near misses to the control register shorten the interval between first near miss and corrective action? (chapter 18) | Empirical | Incident and control records with dates, linked and unlinked; health care as the natural field | Comparison of intervals for linked and unlinked near misses | Master's; doctoral (across institutions) |
| For risks with conditional consequences, does a tested matrix preserve rank but change the response chosen, compared with the triplet? (chapter 16) | Methodological | A sample of risks analyzed both ways; matched decision makers | Elicit the response chosen under each analysis; measure frequency and direction of difference | Master's |
| Do the convergence, validation and sensitivity panels of C3.4 change committee approval behavior? (chapter 16) | Methodological | Committees willing to be presented the same figure with and without the panels | Field experiment measuring deferral, questions asked and subsequent data investment | Master's (hard to run); doctoral |
| Do independent coders from different traditions place the sources on the same six steps and the fields on the same eight objects? (chapters 10, 19) | Methodological | The twenty-seven sources; two or more trained coders; field lists of operating registers for the residue test | Inter-rater agreement; residue of fields that fit no object | Master's |
| Can a proposed control schema hold the control registers of several organizations, and what does not fit? (chapter 13) | Methodological | Control registers exported from several organizations | Export into the proposed schema; measure and classify the residue | Master's; doctoral if adopted |
| What distinguishes consolidations absorbed into practice from those that became another standard on the shelf? (chapters 20, 24) | Institutional | Histories of three or four earlier consolidations in risk management and of convergence programs in accounting and quality | Comparative historical study on a small set of features, including whether sources were re-cited when they changed | Doctoral |
| Is prescriptive content about proof more common where a supervisor exists, and content about meaning where none does? (chapter 12) | Institutional | A corpus of frameworks larger than the twenty-seven, coded for proof versus definition | Corpus coding; relate the share to the presence of a supervisor | Doctoral; master's pilot |
| Do formats outperform ideas at the boundary between organizations, where both regimes coexist? (chapter 13) | Institutional | Supervisory incident reporting under a schema and under a prose standard, side by side | Error rate at the boundary; time to answer a cross-organization question | Master's (with access) |
| Would a shared public parameter record be accepted by supervisors as a statement of their requirements, and who should maintain it? (chapter 24) | Institutional | Structured conversations with supervisors in two or more jurisdictions | Qualitative study; document analysis of how supervisors already publish parameters | Practitioner; master's |
Results
None yet.