WO2014176018A1 - Indexation informatisée de préparation à un risque opérationnel majeur - Google Patents

Indexation informatisée de préparation à un risque opérationnel majeur Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2014176018A1
WO2014176018A1 PCT/US2014/033079 US2014033079W WO2014176018A1 WO 2014176018 A1 WO2014176018 A1 WO 2014176018A1 US 2014033079 W US2014033079 W US 2014033079W WO 2014176018 A1 WO2014176018 A1 WO 2014176018A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
module
criterion
sub
insurer
factor analytic
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Ceased
Application number
PCT/US2014/033079
Other languages
English (en)
Inventor
Martin C. HODELL
John Keane
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
MWH Americas Inc
Original Assignee
MWH Americas Inc
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by MWH Americas Inc filed Critical MWH Americas Inc
Publication of WO2014176018A1 publication Critical patent/WO2014176018A1/fr
Anticipated expiration legal-status Critical
Ceased legal-status Critical Current

Links

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING OR CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q40/00—Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
    • G06Q40/08—Insurance
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING OR CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F16/00—Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor
    • G06F16/30—Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor of unstructured textual data
    • G06F16/33—Querying
    • G06F16/332—Query formulation
    • G06F16/3329—Natural language query formulation

Definitions

  • the present disclosure is directed to the field of evaluating and addressing catastrophe operational risk readiness, and more specifically, to systems and methods to define and quantify a non-life insurer's preparedness to deal with catastrophic events characterized by high consequence and low probability.
  • Non-life insurers around the world are facing escalating costs of natural catastrophes. Furthermore, several areas exist in which non-life insurers appear to be systematically underprepared for catastrophic events, which may result in significant risks.
  • the large percentage of realized operational risk in the Hurricane Katrina, Deepwater Horizon spill, and other catastrophes has led the Banking, Finance and Insurance Industry to recognize the importance of operational risk management processes.
  • the present disclosure recognizes that by undertaking prudent pre-event steps, insurers may significantly reduce the costs of recovery in the event of a catastrophic event. Further, insurers and re-insurers have systematically underestimated the cost of catastrophe-driven operational risk, hence the relative merit of mitigating that risk has been understated.
  • an object of the inventive technology is to provide a computerized framework for generating a catastrophe operational risk readiness index comprising: a risk management database for storing a plurality of insurance preparedness foundation criteria, a plurality of insurance preparedness enabler criteria, and an insurer risk readiness question set for each said criterion; an insurer question interface responsive to said risk management database for posing each question of each said insurer risk readiness question set to an insurer; an insurer response interface for receiving responses to each said posed question from said insurer; an evaluative response scoring module responsive to said insurer response interface for assigning an evaluative response score to each said insurer response; an evaluative criterion scoring module responsive to said evaluative response scoring module for assigning an evaluative criterion score to each said criterion; an evaluative index scoring module responsive to said evaluative criterion scoring module for assigning a catastrophe operational risk readiness index for said insurer; an output display for displaying said catastrophe operational risk readiness index.
  • an object of the inventive technology is to provide a computer architecture for insurer response validity assessment in the determination of a catastrophe operational risk readiness index comprising: a risk management database for storing a plurality of substantive risk readiness questions and a plurality of evidentiary validity assessment questions correlated to said substantive risk readiness questions; an insurer question interface responsive to said risk management database for posing each said substantive risk readiness question and each said evidentiary validity assessment question to said insurer; an insurer response interface for receiving substantive risk readiness responses and evidentiary validity assessment responses from said insurer; an evaluative substantive risk readiness response scoring module responsive to said insurer response interface for assigning a substantive risk readiness question score to each said insurer substantive risk readiness response; an evaluative evidentiary validity assessment response scoring module responsive to said insurer response interface for assigning an evidentiary validity assessment score to each said insurer evidentiary validity assessment response; a validity assessment module for utilizing said substantive risk readiness question score and said evidentiary validity assessment score to assess insurer response validity; an output display for displaying said insurer response validity assessment.
  • an object of the inventive technology is to provide a method for evaluating preparedness of an organization for a catastrophic event, comprising: providing a user with a catastrophe operational risk readiness (CORR) index assessment question set, the question set including a plurality of questions related to one or more criteria and/or attributes of the organization; receiving responses from the user to the question set; compiling and scoring the responses; and determining component and overall scores for CORR based on the response scores and predetermined weighting associated with the one or more criteria and/or attributes.
  • CORR catastrophe operational risk readiness
  • Fig. 1 is a schematic representation depicting a conceptual framework for generating a catastrophe operation risk readiness index in one exemplary embodiment.
  • Fig. 2 is a schematic representation of foundational criteria and enabler criteria in one exemplary embodiment.
  • Fig. 3 is a schematic representation of an evaluative index scoring module methodology in one exemplary embodiment.
  • Fig. 4 is a schematic representation of an evaluative criterion scoring module methodology in one exemplary embodiment.
  • Fig. 5 is a schematic representation of an evaluative response scoring module methodology in one exemplary embodiment.
  • Fig. 6 is a schematic representation of a computer system for evaluating preparedness of an organization for a catastrophic event in one exemplary embodiment.
  • Fig. 7 is a schematic representation of a computerized framework for generating a catastrophe operational risk readiness index in one exemplary embodiment.
  • Fig. 8 is a schematic representation of a computer architecture for insurer response validity assessment in one exemplary embodiment.
  • the present inventive technology includes a variety of aspects, which may be combined in different ways.
  • the following descriptions are provided to list elements and describe some of the embodiments of the present inventive technology. These elements are listed with initial embodiments, however it should be understood that they may be combined in any manner and in any number to create additional embodiments.
  • the variously described examples and preferred embodiments should not be construed to limit the present inventive technology to only the explicitly described systems, techniques, and applications. Further, this description should be understood to support and encompass descriptions and claims of all the various embodiments, systems, techniques, methods, devices, and applications with any number of the disclosed elements, with each element alone, and also with any and all various permutations and combinations of all elements in this or any subsequent application.
  • the present disclosure provides a Catastrophe Operational Risk Readiness (CORR) Index, which is a systematic framework of criteria and attributes that identify strengths and weaknesses of Non-life insurers with respect to operational risk following a low probability, high consequence catastrophic event.
  • CORR Index provides a standard scoring approach that enables insurers, reinsurers, and regulators to evaluate risk readiness. By following the CORR Approach, an insurer can identify areas for improvement in preparation for a major catastrophe prior to the impact of the event itself.
  • the framework includes the following:
  • the present disclosure recognizes that existing approaches/tools are deficient for a number of items, such as defining the elements of operational risk management in the context of low probability, high consequence catastrophic events- and explain which matter more and why such elements matter more, and quantifying an insurer's maturity in catastrophe operational risk management.
  • an entity may perform catastrophe operational risk readiness assessment and initiate an action plan to mitigate one or more identified risks.
  • Various aspects of the disclosure provide a CORRI that enables an entity to (1) focus on operational risk- versus other classes of insurance risk; (2) focus on catastrophe preparedness in particular; and (3) Index composition and scoring mechanics.
  • operational risk may be a primary focus, and is one of a number of overall risks present in non- life insurers.
  • Such overall risks may be categorized into classes of risk, including: Insurance Risk; Market Risk; Credit Risk; Liquidity Risk; Strategic Risk; Operational Risk.
  • non-life insurers are exposed to a number of risks in responding to low probability, high consequence events, such as Claims Management; Information Management; Stakeholder Engagement; and Supply Chain Viability, to name a few examples.
  • Much of the operational risk management attention is directed at assessing business continuity management (i.e., ensuring the insurer could operate in the event of some catastrophe) whereas the focus of the present disclosure is on the underwritten risks themselves and how the insurer improves operational readiness and ultimately operational performance.
  • a focus of various embodiments in on catastrophe preparedness Catastrophe risk is characterized by low probability of occurrence and very high consequence given occurrence. Given this low probability, most non-life insurers tend to only deal with catastrophe occurrence every 15-30 years. As such, internal processes and standard operating procedures are, at best, out-of-date or irrelevant, and at worst, non-existent.
  • a CORRI is provided that includes a CORR framework, question set, and scoring rubric that will be described in further detail below.
  • An Index score is calculated by evaluating question responses with the scoring rubric, which has been based upon an industry-standard capability maturity model. Response scores are weighted, grouped, and summed according to the CORR framework in order to produce an indexed, benchmarkable score of a non-life insurer's readiness to respond operationally to a high- consequence catastrophe.
  • the framework provides, according to various embodiments, a defined scoring approach and rubric, enabling both 'self-scoring' by insurers and a 'certified scoring' that may be conducted by approved third party consultants. Over time, the quantitative weightings of criteria and attributes may be tested and refined as the underlying drivers of risk maturity continue to develop.
  • an entity may be provided economic incentive for near-term preparedness, by enabling catastrophe risk ecosystem stakeholders (governments, regulators, reinsurers) to reward better prepared non-life insurers through lower capital reserve requirements and/or lower reinsurance pricing.
  • catastrophe risk ecosystem stakeholders governments, regulators, reinsurers
  • the readiness rating may comparable across insurers and over time for a particular insurer.
  • the scoring approach is capable of being certified by a third party. Catastrophe risk ecosystem stakeholders, to the extent they can compare certified risk readiness ratings, are then free to tailor pricing, capital reserve requirements, or availability of reinsurance cover.
  • the CORR framework taxonomy shown in Figure 1, illustrates the structure of the framework criteria (specifically the distinction between Foundational and Enabling elements) according to an embodiment.
  • Figure 2 is a more detailed illustration of a framework taxonomy according to an embodiment.
  • the CORR taxonomy and framework indicate how the criteria weighting is established, as shown in Figure 3.
  • the criteria scoring rubric/guidance and matrix according to some embodiments, have been detailed according to an industry-standard maturity assessment model (similar in approach and convention used in EFQM, Baldrige, CMM, PCMM, and CMAT).
  • the CORR includes of a framework for evaluation.
  • the CORR includes of a framework for evaluation including 11 criteria, 25 sub- criteria, and 73 specific attributes, a list of detailed questions intended to drive at current performance against the framework, and a defined evaluation approach / scoring rubric.
  • the 11 criteria of the CORR Index of this example are listed in the below table:
  • each criteria there are a number of sub-criteria, and for each sub-criteria there are a number of specific attributes.
  • the sub-criteria and specific attributes for each criteria in this example are:
  • a framework provides the organization of the index score which includes the operational functions, weighting/importance of the functions, and the approach to score determination, including question, attribute, sub-criteria, criteria and overall scoring.
  • the question set comprises the foundation of the evaluation. A CORR user may respond to the question set in such a way that indicates current strategy and approach in enough detail to indicate evidence.
  • the question set according to various embodiments is designed to be adaptive, such that a user need only answer further detailed questions for which significant evidence is supplied in the preceding response, for example.
  • the question set may step through a logical flow from approach, through deployment, review/update and integration/alignment in order to enable effective scoring against the maturity-defined rubric.
  • a scoring rubric may be used as the rules and definitions to be used by the evaluator in determining a score of a particular question response.
  • the rubric is provided in order to enable standardization within a particular evaluation, and across multiple responses to the Index Assessment.
  • the framework, questions, and scoring rubric are all unique to the CORR Index of the present disclosure.
  • Each component has been developed with the purpose of enabling a standardized scoring approach for the determination of Catastrophe Operational Risk Readiness.
  • the maturity assessment foundation utilized in the scoring rubric is an industry- standard approach used in such applications as EFQM, Baldrige, CMM, PCMM and CMAT.
  • each CORR question corresponds to a particular component of the framework.
  • the framework may organize the questions into a logical arrangement of functional areas and attributes.
  • the scoring rubric is used to evaluate a user's responses in a standard manner.
  • the scores are weighted and summed according to the framework. More specifically, according to some embodiments, first an evaluator may provide the user(s) with the CORR Index Assessment question set, within the CORR framework. Second, the user(s) respond(s) to the questions according to the prescribed order and methodology. Third, the evaluator compiles the responses, verifies the information contained, and scores the responses according to the scoring rubric.
  • the evaluator uses the criteria/attribute weighting prescribed by the framework to produce component and overall scores.
  • an evaluator may adjust the criteria and attributes, and/or their relative weightings, based on insurer's business models and requirements and consumer demands.
  • an evaluator might also adjust the specific questions posed per criterion in order to generate the criteria/overall index scores, and an evaluator may be free to modify the assessment process (responses, scoring methodology, steps, etc.) to arrive at the index.
  • a block diagram illustration of a computing system that may be used in determining a CORR index may include any suitable device capable of operating to perform the functions described herein, and the particular components illustrated in FIG. 6 are for purposes of illustration and discussion of general concepts described herein.
  • a database 600 may be used to store information related to the framework that provides the organization of the index score, and may include the weighting/importance of functions, the scores for different criteria, question sets, attributes, sub-criteria, criteria and other information that will be readily apparent to one of skill in the art.
  • the database 600 may store the question set, which may be retrieved by a query module 610 of computer 602.
  • a user may view questions and respond to the question set using user interface module 615 that is coupled with a controller/processor 605.
  • a scoring module 620 may perform scoring for the responses to the question set based on a scoring rubric, sue has described above.
  • a weighting module 625 may provide weighting to one or more criteria/attributes according to weighting prescribed by the framework to produce component and overall scores.
  • the question set, associated responses, and scoring information may be stored back in database 600, or any other quitable memory device for later retrieval and/or analysis.
  • DSP digital signal processor
  • ASIC application-specific integrated circuit
  • FPGA field programmable gate array
  • a general-purpose processor may be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor may be any conventional processor, controller, microcontroller, or state machine.
  • a processor may also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, e.g., a combination of a DSP and a microprocessor, multiple microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in conjunction with a DSP core, or any other such configuration.
  • the functions described herein may be implemented in hardware, software/firmware, or combinations thereof. If implemented in software/firmware, the functions may be stored on or transmitted over as one or more instructions or code on a computer-readable medium. Other examples and implementations are within the scope and spirit of the disclosure and appended claims. For example, due to the nature of software/firmware, functions described above can be implemented using software/firmware executed by, e.g., a processor, hardware, hardwiring, or combinations thereof. Features implementing functions may also be physically located at various positions, including being distributed such that portions of functions are implemented at different physical locations.
  • Computer-readable media includes both computer storage media and communication media including any medium that facilitates transfer of a computer program from one place to another.
  • a storage medium may be any available medium that can be accessed by a general- purpose or special-purpose computer.
  • computer- readable media can comprise RAM, ROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM or other optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium that can be used to carry or store desired program code means in the form of instructions or data structures and that can be accessed by a general-purpose or special- purpose computer, or a general-purpose or special-purpose processor.
  • any connection is properly termed a computer-readable medium.
  • Disk and disc include compact disc (CD), laser disc, optical disc, digital versatile disc (DVD), floppy disk and Blu- ray disc where disks usually reproduce data magnetically, while discs reproduce data optically with lasers. Combinations of the above are also included within the scope of computer- readable media.
  • embodiments of the inventive technology may involve a computerized framework for generating a catastrophe operational risk readiness index.
  • the framework (701) may utilize a risk management database (702) in which may be stored, for example, risk management data such as insurance preparedness foundation criteria, insurance preparedness enabler criteria, and insurer risk readiness question sets (705) (for example, for each criterion) or any other data relevant to the framework.
  • risk management data such as insurance preparedness foundation criteria, insurance preparedness enabler criteria, and insurer risk readiness question sets (705) (for example, for each criterion) or any other data relevant to the framework.
  • the insurance preparedness foundation criteria and insurance preparedness enabler criteria may establish, define, or otherwise create a standard to which the preparedness of an insurer may be evaluated, such as capability requirements for addressing catastrophic events.
  • the framework (701) may provide for each criterion to have one or more sub -criteria, and each sub-criterion to have one or more attributes.
  • a given criterion or sub-criterion may be implemented in the framework (701) via a criterion factor analytic module (703) or sub-criterion factor analytic module (704), for example in which modules may perform analysis of factors relevant to such criteria or sub-criteria.
  • a given attribute may be implemented in the framework (701) via an attribute activity integration module (706), for example in which modules may integrate activity relevant to such attributes into an analysis.
  • such criteria, sub-criteria, and attributes may correspond to one or more characteristics of an insurer.
  • a leadership and culture criterion may correspond to leadership and culture characteristics of an insurer
  • a people criterion may correspond to personnel characteristics of an insurer
  • a customer experience criterion may correspond to customer service aspects of an insurer, and so forth.
  • Some embodiments of the framework (701) may allow for customization of criteria, sub-criteria, and attributes, for example to address characteristics specific to given insurers, or to implement varied objectives of the framework (701) (for example, as such objectives may be programmed in a computerized framework (701)).
  • the insurer risk readiness question sets (705) may test, reflect, or otherwise relate to the readiness of an insurer to address risk, such as the readiness of the insurer to respond to catastrophic events.
  • Question sets may be correlated to address specific criteria, sub-criteria, or attributes, and may consist of one or more questions (714) that may be directed to an insurer to elicit responses (707).
  • questions (714) in various embodiments may be structured (or programmed, for example in a computerized framework (701)) to test for one or more given criteria, sub-criteria, or attributes.
  • questions may be adaptive, as described elsewhere herein, and embodiments may include one or more sets of automatic adaptive questions modules (713), that may utilize adaptive principles alone or in conjunction with question sets (705) or questions (714).
  • the framework (701) may have an insurer question interface (708) responsive to a risk management database (702) for posing one or more questions (714) to an insurer, and an insurer response interface (709) for receiving responses (707) to such posed questions from the insurer.
  • insurer question interfaces (708) may include speakers, displays, or the like
  • insurer response interfaces (709) may include microphones, keyboards, or the like, and such interfaces generally may naturally include anything suitable for posing questions and receiving responses from insurers.
  • Insurer responses (707) in various embodiments may be evaluated by an evaluative response scoring module (710) responsive to an insurer response interface (709).
  • This module may use any suitable methodology consistent with the objectives of the framework (701) (for example, as such objectives may be programmed in a computerized framework (701)) for evaluating the insurer response (707) in order to assign an evaluative response score to the response.
  • One example of such a methodology may be seen in Fig. 5, though naturally this example should not be construed to limit the inventive principles disclosed herein.
  • One or more evaluative response scores may then inform the assignment of an evaluative criterion score, such as where an evaluative criterion scoring module (711) may be responsive to an evaluative response scoring module (710).
  • this module may use any suitable methodology consistent with the objectives of the framework (701) (for example, as such objectives may be programmed in a computerized framework (701)) for evaluating one or more evaluative response scores in order to assign an evaluative criterion score for a criterion.
  • One example of such a methodology may be seen in Fig. 4, though naturally this example should not be construed to limit the inventive principles disclosed herein.
  • One or more evaluative criterion scores further may inform the assignment of a catastrophe operational risk readiness index for an insurer, such as where an evaluative index scoring module (712) may be responsive to an evaluative criterion scoring module (711).
  • this module may use any suitable methodology consistent with the objectives of the framework (701) (for example, as such objectives may be programmed in a computerized framework (701)) for evaluating one or more evaluative criterion scores in order to assign a catastrophe operational risk readiness index for an insurer.
  • One example of such a methodology may be seen in Fig. 3, though again this example should not be construed to limit the inventive principles disclosed herein.
  • a scoring module may be a computerized weighted scoring rubric module, as wherein a rubric for scoring may utilize weights for various components of the score. Any suitable weighting may be used consistent with the objectives of the framework (701) (for example, as may be programmed for a computerized framework (701)).
  • a computerized weighted scoring rubric module may utilize a differential weight for one of a criterion or criteria, a sub-criterion or sub-criteria, or an attribute or attributes.
  • an evaluative index scoring module (712) in some embodiments may utilize a scoring rubric that weights each foundation criterion at 20 percent and each enabler criterion at 5 percent, for example in assigning a catastrophe operational risk readiness index.
  • this example should not be construed to limit the inventive principles disclosed herein.
  • a scoring module may use any scoring rubric consistent with the inventive principles described herein. Examples may include an insurer logic rubric (as wherein a score may be based on consistency with an accepted logic), a question type rubric (as wherein a score may be based on consistency with accepted questions), a proficiency evidence rubric (as wherein a score may be based on evidence of proficiency), a summing rubric (as wherein a score may be based on summing component score elements), and averaging rubric (as wherein a score may be based on averaging component score elements), and the like, where the foregoing examples again should not be construed to limit the inventive principles disclosed herein.
  • the framework (701) in various embodiments also may include an output display (715) for displaying the catastrophe operational risk readiness index.
  • the display should be understood in general terms, so as to encompass anything that can communicate the catastrophe operational risk readiness index, such as monitors, speakers, printers, and the like.
  • the catastrophe operational risk readiness index may be a standardized catastrophe risk readiness index, as the principles of standardization may have been discussed elsewhere herein.
  • embodiments of the inventive technology may involve a computer architecture (801) for insurer response validity assessment in the determination of a catastrophe operation risk readiness index.
  • a risk management database (802) may store one or more substantive risk readiness questions (814) and one or more evidentiary validity assessment questions (815).
  • the substantive risk readiness questions (814) may test, reflect, or otherwise relate to the readiness of an insurer to address risk, such as the readiness of the insurer to respond to catastrophic events, and may be understood to be substantive in nature, as opposed to the evidentiary nature of the evidentiary validity assessment questions (815).
  • the substantive risk readiness questions (814) may include an approach question, a deployment question, a review question, and a linkage question.
  • insurer practices such as approach (e.g., does the insurer have an approach to handling catastrophic risk, and is that approach written), deployment (e.g., has the insurer's approach been communicated to those elements that handle catastrophic risk), review (e.g., does the insurer have a review process for reviewing other risk events that may bear on the approach), and linkage (e.g., has the approach been linked to all elements of the insurer, even those not directly responsible for handling catastrophic risk).
  • approach e.g., does the insurer have an approach to handling catastrophic risk, and is that approach written
  • deployment e.g., has the insurer's approach been communicated to those elements that handle catastrophic risk
  • review e.g., does the insurer have a review process for reviewing other risk events that may bear on the approach
  • linkage e.g., has the approach been linked to all elements of the insurer, even those not directly responsible for handling catastrophic risk.
  • this example is merely illustrative and should not be construed to limit the inventive principles disclosed herein as to the nature and function
  • the evidentiary validity assessment questions (815) may establish, define, or otherwise create a standard to which the validity of responses of an insurer to the substantive risk readiness questions (814) may be evaluated.
  • the evidentiary validity assessment questions (815) therefore may be correlated to the substantive risk readiness questions (814), and may evaluate the validity of insurer responses to the substantive risk readiness questions (814).
  • Such correlation may be in any manner suitable to effect evidentiary and/or validation functions they play with respect to the substantive questions they are correlated to.
  • the computer architecture may have an insurer question interface (808) and an insurer response interface (809) for posing substantive risk readiness questions (814) and evidentiary validity assessment questions (815) and receiving substantive risk readiness responses (816) and evidentiary validity assessment responses (817) from an insurer.
  • Insurer substantive risk readiness responses (816) in various embodiments may be evaluated by an evaluative substantive risk readiness response scoring module (818) responsive to an insurer response interface (809).
  • This module may use any suitable methodology consistent with the objectives of the architecture (801) (for example, as such objectives may be programmed in a computer architecture (801)) for evaluating the insurer substantive risk readiness responses (816) in order to assign a substantive risk readiness question score.
  • the substantive risk readiness score may reflect a measure of insurer risk readiness.
  • Evidentiary validity assessment responses (817) in various embodiments may be evaluated by an evaluative evidentiary validity assessment response scoring module (819) responsive to an insurer response interface (809).
  • This module may use any suitable methodology consistent with the objectives of the architecture (801) (for example, as such objectives may be programmed in a computer architecture (801)) for evaluating the insurer evidentiary validity assessment responses (817) in order to assign an evidentiary validity assessment score.
  • the evidentiary validity assessment score may reflect a measure of insurer response validity. Validity, in turn, may reach properties such as veracity, accuracy, reliability, and the like, perhaps providing a measure of soundness of the substantive risk readiness responses (816) and robustness to the catastrophe operational risk readiness index.
  • One or more substantive risk readiness question scores and one or more evidentiary validity assessment scores may be utilized to determine an insurer response validity assessment, such as where a validity assessment module (820) may utilize such substantive risk readiness question scores and such evidentiary validity assessment scores.
  • the insurer response validity assessment may be either a validation of one or more insurer responses or a disqualification of one or more insurer responses.
  • validation may involve the acceptance and subsequent use of the response in determining the index.
  • Disqualification may involve not using the disqualified insurer response in determining the index, such as perhaps by omitting the response from the determination, by requiring a new response from the insurer to replace the disqualified response, or the like.
  • this module may use any suitable methodology consistent with the objectives of the architecture (801) (for example, as such objectives may be programmed in a computer architecture (801)) to assess insurer response validity.
  • a validity assessment module (820) in some embodiments may be a threshold analysis validity assessment module, as wherein the assessment of insurer responses as being either valid or disqualified may depend on whether various scores fall within or outside of a threshold.
  • this example is merely illustrative and should not be construed to limit the inventive principles disclosed herein as to the nature and function of the validity assessment module (820).
  • an evaluative substantive risk readiness response scoring module (818), an evaluative evidentiary validity assessment response scoring module (819), and a validity assessment module (820) may each use any suitable methodologies for generating output consistent with the inventive principles described herein. As one example, embodiments may involve an evaluative substantive risk readiness response scoring module (818) utilizing a scoring rubric that equally weighs substantive insurer responses and takes a simple average of the responses to assign a substantive risk readiness score. Similarly, an evaluative evidentiary validity assessment response scoring module (819) may utilize a scoring rubric that equally weighs evidentiary insurer responses and take a simple average of the responses to assign an evidentiary validity assessment score.
  • a validity assessment module (820) then may utilize a threshold analysis where: 1) the substantive risk readiness score is utilized for the validity assessment if the evidentiary validity assessment score is equal to or differs by no more than 10 percent of the substantive risk readiness score; 2) the evidentiary validity assessment score is utilized for the validity assessment if the evidentiary validity assessment score differs from the substantive risk readiness score by an amount greater than 10 percent but no more than 20 percent of the substantive risk readiness score; and 3) the insurer responses are disqualified if the evidentiary validity assessment score differs from the substantive risk readiness score by more than 20 percent of the substantive risk readiness score.
  • the architecture (801) in various embodiments also may include an output display (812) for displaying the insurer response validity assessment.
  • the display should be understood in general terms, so as to encompass anything that can communicate the insurer response validity assessment, such as monitors, speakers, printers, and the like.
  • the basic concepts of the present inventive technology may be embodied in a variety of ways. It involves both risk readiness indexing techniques as well as devices to accomplish the appropriate risk readiness indexing.
  • the risk readiness indexing techniques are disclosed as part of the results shown to be achieved by the various devices described and as steps which are inherent to utilization. They are simply the natural result of utilizing the devices as intended and described.
  • some devices are disclosed, it should be understood that these not only accomplish certain methods but also can be varied in a number of ways.
  • all of these facets should be understood to be encompassed by this disclosure.
  • any claims set forth at any time are hereby incorporated by reference as part of this description of the inventive technology, and the applicant expressly reserves the right to use all of or a portion of such incorporated content of such claims as additional description to support any of or all of the claims or any element or component thereof, and the applicant further expressly reserves the right to move any portion of or all of the incorporated content of such claims or any element or component thereof from the description into the claims or vice-versa as necessary to define the matter for which protection is sought by this application or by any subsequent continuation, division, or continuation-in-part application thereof, or to obtain any benefit of, reduction in fees pursuant to, or to comply with the patent laws, rules, or regulations of any country or treaty, and such content incorporated by reference shall survive during the entire pendency of this application including any subsequent continuation, division, continuation-in-part application thereof or any reissue or extension thereon.

Landscapes

  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Finance (AREA)
  • Accounting & Taxation (AREA)
  • Mathematical Physics (AREA)
  • Computational Linguistics (AREA)
  • General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Databases & Information Systems (AREA)
  • Data Mining & Analysis (AREA)
  • Human Computer Interaction (AREA)
  • Artificial Intelligence (AREA)
  • Development Economics (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • Technology Law (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Financial Or Insurance-Related Operations Such As Payment And Settlement (AREA)

Abstract

La préparation à un risque opérationnel majeur peut faire l'objet d'une indexation informatisée. Une base de données de gestion de risques (702, 802) peut contenir des critères, des sous-critères et des attributs pertinents. Des interfaces (708, 709, 808, 809) peuvent poser des questions (714, 814, 815) et recevoir des réponses (707, 816, 817). Des scores pertinents peuvent être attribués par des modules d'évaluation et de notation de réponses (710), des modules d'évaluation et de notation de critères (711), des modules d'évaluation et de notation d'indices (712), des modules d'évaluation et de notation de la préparation et la réponse à un risque sensible (818), et des modules d'évaluation et de notation de la validité probatoire de l'estimation et de la réponse (819). Des modules d'estimation de la validité (820) peuvent être utilisés afin d'estimer la validité d'une réponse. Un indice de préparation à un risque opérationnel majeur peut ainsi être généré.
PCT/US2014/033079 2013-04-25 2014-04-04 Indexation informatisée de préparation à un risque opérationnel majeur Ceased WO2014176018A1 (fr)

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US201361816025P 2013-04-25 2013-04-25
US61/816,025 2013-04-25

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2014176018A1 true WO2014176018A1 (fr) 2014-10-30

Family

ID=51792297

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/US2014/033079 Ceased WO2014176018A1 (fr) 2013-04-25 2014-04-04 Indexation informatisée de préparation à un risque opérationnel majeur

Country Status (1)

Country Link
WO (1) WO2014176018A1 (fr)

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN118469247A (zh) * 2024-07-09 2024-08-09 时代天海(厦门)智能科技有限公司 一种无人船舶自组织补给方法及系统

Citations (18)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5909669A (en) * 1996-04-01 1999-06-01 Electronic Data Systems Corporation System and method for generating a knowledge worker productivity assessment
US20060009992A1 (en) * 2004-07-02 2006-01-12 Cwiek Mark A Method and system for assessing a community's preparedness, deterrence, and response capability for handling crisis situations
US20090076894A1 (en) * 2007-09-13 2009-03-19 Cary Lee Bates Advertising in Virtual Environments Based on Crowd Statistics
US20090326989A1 (en) * 2005-03-23 2009-12-31 Schmitt Brett A Interactive information management system and method
US7752054B1 (en) * 2000-05-04 2010-07-06 Microsoft Corporation Advisor referral tool
US20100211413A1 (en) * 2009-02-18 2010-08-19 Emergis Inc. Revising containerized processing logic for use in insurance claim processing
US7809595B2 (en) * 2002-09-17 2010-10-05 Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Na System and method for managing risks associated with outside service providers
US7818152B2 (en) * 2001-07-20 2010-10-19 International Business Machines Corporation Computerized method and system for maturity assessment of business processes
US7844475B1 (en) * 2001-02-06 2010-11-30 Makar Enterprises, Inc. Method for strategic commodity management through mass customization
US20110166900A1 (en) * 2010-01-04 2011-07-07 Bank Of America Corporation Testing and Evaluating the Recoverability of a Process
US20110257961A1 (en) * 2010-04-14 2011-10-20 Marc Tinkler System and method for generating questions and multiple choice answers to adaptively aid in word comprehension
US8175899B2 (en) * 2002-09-20 2012-05-08 Fortis, Inc. Systems and methods for processing a request to repair or replace an item covered by insurance
US8239677B2 (en) * 2006-10-10 2012-08-07 Equifax Inc. Verification and authentication systems and methods
US20120260201A1 (en) * 2011-04-07 2012-10-11 Infosys Technologies Ltd. Collection and analysis of service, product and enterprise soft data
US8326654B2 (en) * 2007-04-23 2012-12-04 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. Providing a service to a service requester
US8396719B2 (en) * 2005-03-25 2013-03-12 J2 Global Communications Real-time customer service assistance using collected customer life cycle data
US8401896B2 (en) * 2005-11-01 2013-03-19 Accenture Global Services Limited Automated task processor for insurance claims
US8401878B2 (en) * 2009-01-06 2013-03-19 Mark Stender Method and system for connecting an insured to an insurer using a mobile device

Patent Citations (18)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5909669A (en) * 1996-04-01 1999-06-01 Electronic Data Systems Corporation System and method for generating a knowledge worker productivity assessment
US7752054B1 (en) * 2000-05-04 2010-07-06 Microsoft Corporation Advisor referral tool
US7844475B1 (en) * 2001-02-06 2010-11-30 Makar Enterprises, Inc. Method for strategic commodity management through mass customization
US7818152B2 (en) * 2001-07-20 2010-10-19 International Business Machines Corporation Computerized method and system for maturity assessment of business processes
US7809595B2 (en) * 2002-09-17 2010-10-05 Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Na System and method for managing risks associated with outside service providers
US8175899B2 (en) * 2002-09-20 2012-05-08 Fortis, Inc. Systems and methods for processing a request to repair or replace an item covered by insurance
US20060009992A1 (en) * 2004-07-02 2006-01-12 Cwiek Mark A Method and system for assessing a community's preparedness, deterrence, and response capability for handling crisis situations
US20090326989A1 (en) * 2005-03-23 2009-12-31 Schmitt Brett A Interactive information management system and method
US8396719B2 (en) * 2005-03-25 2013-03-12 J2 Global Communications Real-time customer service assistance using collected customer life cycle data
US8401896B2 (en) * 2005-11-01 2013-03-19 Accenture Global Services Limited Automated task processor for insurance claims
US8239677B2 (en) * 2006-10-10 2012-08-07 Equifax Inc. Verification and authentication systems and methods
US8326654B2 (en) * 2007-04-23 2012-12-04 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. Providing a service to a service requester
US20090076894A1 (en) * 2007-09-13 2009-03-19 Cary Lee Bates Advertising in Virtual Environments Based on Crowd Statistics
US8401878B2 (en) * 2009-01-06 2013-03-19 Mark Stender Method and system for connecting an insured to an insurer using a mobile device
US20100211413A1 (en) * 2009-02-18 2010-08-19 Emergis Inc. Revising containerized processing logic for use in insurance claim processing
US20110166900A1 (en) * 2010-01-04 2011-07-07 Bank Of America Corporation Testing and Evaluating the Recoverability of a Process
US20110257961A1 (en) * 2010-04-14 2011-10-20 Marc Tinkler System and method for generating questions and multiple choice answers to adaptively aid in word comprehension
US20120260201A1 (en) * 2011-04-07 2012-10-11 Infosys Technologies Ltd. Collection and analysis of service, product and enterprise soft data

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN118469247A (zh) * 2024-07-09 2024-08-09 时代天海(厦门)智能科技有限公司 一种无人船舶自组织补给方法及系统

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Grewal et al. Research on corporate sustainability: Review and directions for future research
Aghion et al. Coase lecture‐the inverted‐U relationship between credit access and productivity growth
Sila Investigating changes in TQM’s effects on corporate social performance and financial performance over time
Marshall et al. Going above and beyond: how sustainability culture and entrepreneurial orientation drive social sustainability supply chain practice adoption
Gallery et al. Financial literacy and pension investment decisions
Bepari Audit committee characteristics and key audit matters (KAMs) disclosures
Faulk et al. As you sow, so shall you reap? Evaluating whether targeted capacity building improves nonprofit financial growth
Barnett et al. Measuring the Impact and Value for Money of Governance & Conflict Programmes
Silva et al. Uncertainty, flexibility and operational performance of companies: modelling from the perspective of managers
US20170185934A1 (en) Enterprise value assessment tool
Kirkpatrick et al. Regulatory impact assessment: An overview
Vandenbroucke The portrayal of effectiveness of supplier codes of conduct in improving labor conditions in global supply chains: A systematic review of the literature
Sherwood et al. Auditors' National Office Consultations
Ronoowah et al. Governance disclosure quality and firm performance: empirical evidence from an emerging economy
Jordan Logic modeling: A tool for designing program evaluations
Potter et al. Keeping it private: financial reporting by large proprietary companies in Australia
WO2014176018A1 (fr) Indexation informatisée de préparation à un risque opérationnel majeur
Searcy et al. Integrating sustainable development indicators with existing business infrastructure
Wolfe et al. The effect of partition dependence on assessing accounting estimates
KR20230138690A (ko) 기업경영진단시스템 및 기업경영진단방법
Saka et al. A multi-criteria decision-making framework for evaluating corporate governance: An operations research approach
Ericsson et al. Green Guardian or Financial Folly: Exploring the relationship between ESG score and the probability of default
Proksch The integrated reporting journey and the influence of sustainability reporting-experiences and practices from Sweden and Germany
Kollmuss et al. How offset programs assess and approve projects and credits
Ilinski et al. Towards the theory of firm's ESG transformation: ESG Readiness

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 14788238

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: DE

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase

Ref document number: 14788238

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1