A Risk Diagnosing Methodology Web-based Tool for SME’s and

Start-up Enterprises

Luís Pereira

, Alexandra Tenera

1,2

, João Bispo

and João Wemans

Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia (FCT), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL), Lisbon, Portugal

UNIDEMI, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal

WS Energia, Founder and Senior Developer, Lisbon, Portugal

Keywords: Risk Assessment, Innovation Management, SME’s, Web-based Decision Tools.

Abstract: This work presents a risk diagnosing methodology (RDM) web-based tool, that can provide to Small and

Medium Enterprises (SME’s) the capability to identify, evaluate and manage the risks associated with a

company’s idea development project portfolio. This tool was conceived to support successful innovative

product/service development projects, from its idealization to its commercialization, and to encourage

SME’s on systematic use of risk management approaches in order to increase their successful rates. This

paper also includes a brief literature review of some of the risk management tools and models available to

SME’s, as well as comparative analyses of the identified similar tools.

1 INTRODUCTION

During the last decades the world’s economy has

undergone a process of deep reestablishment,

moving into a fast-changing, knowledge-based

economy in a global scale (Yun-hong et al., 2007)

which dragged businesses into a daily struggling to

subsist in a new difficult and challenging economic

environment (Emmenegger et al., 2012). To subsist

in this global competition and overcome the rapid

technology changes and product variety expansion,

the development of an integrated capability to

innovate is becoming a predominant strategy for

SME’s (Ebrahim et al., 2010). Innovation is an

inexhaustible motive force for socio-economic

development, which makes it a key factor to

measure national competitiveness (Di, 2010).

Innovation can be seen as the action or process of

creating a new method or idea (Black, 2003) which

also includes its exploration and commercialization

(Massa and Testa, 2008). The use of a formal and

systematic process in the development of new

products/services, has been considered a decision

factor of the project’s success or failure (Griffin,

1997), in which the new product development

(NPD) innovative approach is one of the most wide

known and used to formally support the innovation

project processes among SME’s.

Since the creation of something new is the essence

of an innovation, this process necessarily involves

risk, and consequently early risk identification and

management is specially vital and required in

innovative SME’s (Vargas-Hernández and García-

Santillán, 2011). Nonetheless, efforts to develop

empirical models, metrics and tools to accurately

assist SME’s in the risk management of innovative

projects still needs development (Aleixo and Tenera,

2009). Literature review also shows that SME’s

operate in the same environment as their larger

counterparts, but their attitude towards risk grandly

differs, being that SME’s owners/managers don’t

always recognize the need to escalate the importance

of risk identification and its minimization (Smit and

Watkins, 2012). SME’s also have inevitable

limitations regarding internal availability of

resources, restraining the company’s ability to

engage in innovative activities (Freel, 2005),

because they easily became fully occupied solving

short-term operational problems, which conducts to

a lack of attention to their long-term strategy and to

disregard risk management importance in their

initiatives, remaining stuck in a permanent

operational problem solving (Vos et al., 1998).

Knowing that the percentage of existing SME’s

around the world stands over 97% (Brancia, 2011),

developing studies regarding the risk assessment and

management in innovative projects for SME’s is

308

Pereira L., Tenera A., Bispo J. and Wemans J..

A Risk Diagnosing Methodology Web-based Tool for SME’s and Start-up Enterprises.

DOI: 10.5220/0004548103080317

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval and the International Conference on Knowledge

Management and Information Sharing (KMIS-2013), pages 308-317

ISBN: 978-989-8565-75-4

 2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

then critical. Therefore, this paper seeks to present a

solution to systematically support management risk

practices in SME’s in order to satisfy their need of

useful and pragmatic approaches to manage the risks

of their project portfolio ideas development and

innovative projects. So, in this article it will be

presented and discussed a web-based integrated risk

perception and response tool, designed to SME’s

and start-up enterprises, which will provide an early

stage risk assessment throughout a web-based

platform – the Spotrisk®.

2 ASSESSING RISKS IN

INNOVATIVE SME’S

2.1 Current SME’s Risk Support Tools

and Models

SMEs are usually characterized by the central role of

their owners, high multiplicity of one’s duties and

close employee identification (McKiernan and

Morris, 1999). Often, managing directors engage the

overall risk assessment without sharing and

discussing it with team members (Henschel, 2008).

Consequently, enterprises in their starting phase

often underestimate risks, ignoring them or just

having only one risk strategy for bearing the risks

(Henschel, 2008).

Furthermore, SMEs typically do not have the

resources to acquire specialists for each enterprise’s

position nor in administration functions such as risk

management (Matthews and Scott, 1995). Also,

SMEs usually do not tend to use specific techniques

to identify or manage risks and literature related is

limited and still in an early phase of development

(Jayathilake, 2012).

Moreover, due to limitations regarding

infrastructure, management, technical expertise,

intellectual and financial resources, SME’s are far

from adopting a proactive approach towards risk

(Janney and Dess, 2006), despite its critical

importance regarding their sustainability and results.

As a groundwork to the present research and for

the aftermost risk tool comparive analysis, several

existing risk models and tools were previously

analised. A list of the most relevant found is

presented on Table 1, which includes a brief

description along with the identified advantages and

disadvantages of each one of them.

All the mentioned tools use a subjective risk

approach based on uncertainties and nearly all

identifies, prioritizes and address risks. However

none of the tools is suitable per se to SME’s,

because either is too expensive or too complex,

compelling the company to use extensive efforts and

time to an activity which most SME’s managers

consider not to be a binding activity.

From Table 1 analysis, Risk Diagnosing

Methodology (RDM) emerges as an important

model which, if adapted to a platform reducing the

existing complexity, time expenditure and

facilitator’s function as originally required, could

dwell as a strong risk supporting solution for SME’s

and start-up enterprises.

3 THE SPOTRISK® TOOL

The development of the Spotrisk® tool was made

possible with the contribution of a group of

researchers that included one of RDM’s creators:

Jimme Keizer. Spotrisk® has a RDM framework

basis which provides SME’s an adapted system of

risk assessment and response. The tool seeks to

allow enterprises to diagnose thoroughly and

methodically both internal and external risks that an

innovative project generally faces, formulating the

type of risk management strategy to be established.

The tool was developed on a web-based

platform, universally accessible, that automates the

RDM’s “Risk identification” and “Risk Response

development and control” phases through a web

integrated system, as synthetized in figure 1.

Figure 1: Spotrisk® global structure.

The interaction with the organization is based on

the RDM’s “Risk assessment” phase, where the

manager and each member of project team need to

answer to a standard risk questionnaire, in order to

put forward the project’s risk profile analysis and

check its progress in time.

ARiskDiagnosingMethodologyWeb-basedToolforSME'sandStart-upEnterprises

309

Table 1: Main existing risk management support tools and models.

Name/Year Functionalities Advantages Disadvantages

Iris Intelligence

2005

Organizational integrated risk

management within wide

business practices.



Integration with Microsoft

Office;

 User-Friendly;

 Cloud based possibility;

 Complete.

 Very Expensive;

 Designed to manage only

organizational risks.

RiskCloud

2003

Risk identification and

assessment with personal

support.



Cloud based (no installation

required);

 Visual & User-friendly;

 AS/NZS/ISO31000:2009;

 Complete.

 Expensive;

 Difficult access;

 Organization analysis and

not specific project

analysis.

ProjectFuture

2003

Project’s quantitative and

qualitative risk calculation and

identification software.



List of possible risks, effects,

causes and responses;

 Risks associated with tasks;

 Possibility to evaluate severity

of risks associated with

different dates.

 Limited number of Projects;

 Expensive;

 Software installation

required.

RiskyProject

2002

Project planning, scheduling,

quantitative risk analysis, and

performance measurement.

 Add-In association with

Microsoft Project;

 Possibility to regulate the risk

tolerance.



Complex;

 No risk identification;

 Software installation

required;

 Dilatory and slow

processes.

SME-at-Risk

2002

Service that aims to provide a

comprehensive understanding of

the risk management basics.



Provides a vast know-how

basis;

 Shortens the access to existing

articles;

 Shares information.



Lack of management;

 No functionalities in terms

of tool;

 Only provides literature

review.

RDM

2002

Methodology that through a

series of interviews and a

checklist questionnaire collects

results, allowing a company to

diagnose and manage project’s

risks.



Diagnoses thoroughly and

systematically the project’s

risks;

 Develops technological,

organizational and business

approaches;

 Formulates suitable risk output

strategies.

 Needs a risk facilitator;

 Time expenditure;

 Complex;

 Difficult access to the

methodology.

Each user can create an unlimited number of

projects, specify its details and if necessary clone it,

in order to assess a similar version of a certain

project.

The Spotrisk® web-based platform is structured

by: a “Goal oriented questionnaire”; a “Results”

module with an integrated project risk profile

analysis; and a “Benchmarking” and chart analysis

module. Each of these topics will be next clarified

and detailed.

3.1 The Goal Oriented Questionnaire

Because the success of product/service innovation

can be determined by external influences and

internal circumstances in which all these factors

interact, the nature of the issues must be done

according to the domains in which the innovative

project stands in order to obtain a global and

effective assessment. However, for intended

aggregation and project comparison purposes, a

standardized format is desired. So, a general goal

oriented questionnaire was developed in order to

help identify common potential risks of product

innovation projects in the following main domains

as proposed on the RDM’s approach: technology,

market, finance and operations (Keizer et al., 2002).

The tool also brings forward a RDM reference

list with potential risk issues in the innovation

process. For that, in a primary approach, a deep

analysis of the reference list was made and selected

issues were introduced and standardized in the

KMIS2013-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing

310

Spotrisk’s questionnaire (see Appendix the selected

risk issues). After some debate within researcher and

development team some issues were added, such as

question number 7 from Idea Stage or question

number 3 from Feasibility Stage, setting up a total of

35 critical issues.

In order to manage the project portfolio better,

the RDM uses the approach, known as the

“Innovation Funnel” created in the early nineties

(Ganguly, 1999). This approach, based on the

conceptual model of Wheelwright and Clark

(Wheelwright and Clark, 1992) is originally

constituted by six stages in which projects are

defined. However, in the Spotrisk® risk approach,

only the four stages shown in Figure 2 were

considered, while the remaining original stages

“Post Launch Evaluation” and “Rollout Contender”

were taken out, being the most important aspects of

these phases included in the issues of the Launch

Stage.

As it can be seen in the Appendix, the selected

critical issues resorted in the goal oriented

questionnaire were distributed through this four key

staged process, from the initial conception of the

idea, to the launching of the new product/service,

elapsing through feasibility and capability phases to

safeguard the potential and readiness of the project.

Between each project stage a risk assessment will

determine the viability of the project and a “go /no

go” condition will be performed.

The critical questions were rendered into positive

statements of goal objectives, meaning that each

objective, if realized within a project, will translate it

as a safe project. Each goal/objective on the

questionnaire needs to be responded individually

standing on three different parameters assessment:

 Level of Implementation – represents how

much of the specific goal the project already

has or the level of certainty that it will be

realized; i.e. the strength of the statement’s

truth, within the project’s reality.

 Capacity to Influence – represents the ability of

the project team to guaranty the

accomplishment of the project’s goal, within

the time and resource limits.

 Severity of the Consequences – represents the

potential level of negative impact on the

project’s performance by not attending to the

specified goal.

For each parameter considered, an answer is

required on a Likert five-point-scale, as for “Very

low” representing the lowest reflection of the

analysis and “Very high” being the highest

consideration regarding the defined goal. “Low”,

“Medium” and “High” responses are for between

conditions.

For example, addressing over the goal from the

idea stage: “1. The idea has a clear business

proposition: operational, cost, product, customer or

resource leadership”. Now, analyzing each of the

parameters according to a hypothetical project:

 Level of Implementation: let’s say my idea

doesn’t have a business proposition. So the

Rating is “Very Low”;

 Capacity to Influence: the project team is

hypothetically capable of influencing the

clearness of the idea’s business proposition but

it could be more capable. Therefore the

influence should be “Medium”;

 Severity of the Consequences: the lack of

clearness in the idea’s business proposition can

strongly jeopardize the project. Also, a very

clear business proposition will strongly benefit

the project. Then the impact shall be “Very

High”.

Figure 2: Innovation Funnel (adapted from: Wheelwright and Clark, 1992; Ganguly, 1999).

ARiskDiagnosingMethodologyWeb-basedToolforSME'sandStart-upEnterprises

311

Each response represents a numeric quantity to be

used in the risk profile calculation, being that the

first two variables (level of implementation and

capacity to influence) behave according to a “the

higher, the better” logic, unlike the third variable

(severity of the consequences), which behaves in the

opposite sense (see Table 2).

Table 2: Qualitative risk metrics.

Level of

implementation

Capacity to

influence

Severity of the

consequences

Answer Value Answer Value Answer Value

very low

low

medium

high

very high

very low

low

medium

high

very high

very low

low

medium

high

very high

The questionnaire results are then conducted

into a database, where each goal is categorized into a

risk class, returning from the data base the respective

categorization: “Safety”, “Low Risk”, “Medium

Risk”, “High Risk” or “Failure”, as it can be seen in

Figure 3. In next section the data from de Results

Module will be further present and discussed, along

with the advices generated per each goal.

Figure 3: Print screen of the capability stage of a certain

project.

3.2 Results Module

The project risk profile calculation transcribes the

work developed by Jimme Keizer, Johannes Halman

and Michael Song (Keizer et al. , 2002), so likewise,

every risk is classified along the three parameters

into four groups by the following decision rules:

 (“*”): At least 50% of the scores are 1 or 2 (1

being “very risky”) and there is an absence of 5

scores on the numeric point scale.

 (“0”): At least 50% of the scores are 4 or 5 and

there are no scores of 1 on the numeric point

scale.

 (“m”): At least 50% of the scores are 3 and

there is an absence of 1 or 5 in the numeric

point scale.

 (“?”): For all remaining cases. There exists a

lack of consensus, visible in a wide distribution

of opinions. After cautious analysis and

posterior comparison with decision profiles it is

possible to avail each case (Keizer et al., 2002).

For example, a combination of scores “*,*,*” on

a given goal would result in its classification as so

risky that not diminishing the associated risks could

be fatal for the project (Failure), on the other end the

combination “0,0,0” would result in a “Safety”

classification for that project’s goal.

Meanwhile, the database formulates the risk

management strategies to respond to the assessed

risk goals. Each goal is analyzed with a criterion

relating the number of answers below a given value,

generating an advice (specified in Table 3). For each

goal, one of five broad advices can be generated and,

for each advice specific actions will be later

formulated.

If, for one explicit goal, the answers given reflect

a safety situation, the database outputs the “Accept”

advice, meaning that the project is proceeding

according to a desired profile. If the parameter

“Level of Implementation”, and no other parameter

else, is below the value “3” (very low or low) then

the advice given is “Focus”. This stands for a lack of

efficiency in the distribution of the resources

available. The “Focus” advice is generated when the

project team possesses solutions to influence a

specific goal and seeks to center the resources

available on this shortage objective.

More specific actions can also be suggested by

the database such as “Avoid an unfamiliar

subcontractor” or “Allocate resources”, depending

on the context of the goal.

Table 3: Correspondent parameter conditions for the generated broad advices.

Advices Accept Focus Acquire Protect Go/No-Go

Condition

Each of the

parameters:

≤ 2

Level of

Implementation:

≤ 2

Capacity to

Influence:

≤ 2

Severity of the

consequences:

≤ 2

At least 2 of 3

parameters:

≤ 2

KMIS2013-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing

312

If the parameter “Capacity to Influence”, and no

other parameter else, is below the value “3” (very

low or low) then the advice given is “Acquire”. This

advice stands for a lack of resources available for the

specific goal.

The “Acquire” advice is generated when the

level of implementation is good, as well as the

protection of the project related goal impact, but the

capacity of the project team to influence the

objective within the time and resources is weak.

Therefore the “Acquire” advice suggests the project

manager to take specific actions such as “Obtain

information”, “Acquire expertise in this subject” or

“Improve communication”, depending on the nature

of the objective.

If the parameter “Severity of the consequences”,

and no other parameter else, is below the value “3”

(high or very high) then the advice given is

“Protect”. This advice stands for creating a safety

net for the case the goal is not accomplished.

The “Protect” advice is generated when the

level of implementation is good, as well as the

capacity of the project team to influence the goal,

but the consequences potential impact on the project

goal is too high for not to be protect it. Therefore the

“Protect” advice suggests that project manager

should protect the viability of the project, by taking

specific actions such as “Change contracts

typology”, “Get insurance” or “Chose for

performance bounds”, depending on the context of

the associated goal.

Finally, If 2 of the 3 existing parameters are

below the value ”3” then the advice given is

“Go/No-Go”. This case stands for a difficult

situation where the manager needs to decide whether

there are possibilities to continue with the project,

knowing that it stands on a hazard situation and the

need to change some of the parameters in jeopardy;

or if the possibilities are diminished and its best to

simply abandon the project.

Moreover, apart from the calculation of

objective’s risk classes and the generation of

advices, the platform is able to calculate the average

risk per stage or the general risk profile for the

project (see Figure 4). This is performed through the

calculation of the weighted average of the assessed

goals within each stage or within the whole project.

The average risk profile attains values from 1 to 5,

being that a project is considered as “Excellent”. If

the risk profile stands bellow “2”; gets the

representativeness of “Viable”.

If it stands between 2 - 3; as “Risky” if it stands

between 3 - 4; and in the case it stands above “4” as

“Impracticable”.

Figure 4: Print screen of the risk profile of each stage and

its average.

3.3 Benchmarking Discussion

Small ﬁrms, in which inevitable limitations of

internal resources ultimately constraint the ability to

engage in innovative activities (Rothwell, 1991),

will barely gather conditions to obtain a risk

facilitator, which will attain the RDM risk

management approach. In this context, Spotrisk®

gives the possibility for the enterprise to earn

feedback from a global network of its users,

aggregating and biding the information collected.

So, the services provided behind the platform may

stand in for the risk facilitator’s role, automatically.

Each submitted project takes a tended place in

the database, contributing to data collection from

which every user can compare his project. Each

project can then be compared in terms of overall risk

ranking, stage status or goal assessment and scaled

up with the overall average of existing projects,

within a specific user or with a specific project. For

example, a project manager may wish to compare

his project with a specific company’s kind of project

(e.g. Google’s) which it could be possible if the

stated profile was created. Thereby, it is possible to

incrementally enrich an assessed project by

submitting it to a global comparison and working as

an innovation network.

The continuum use of the platform will provide

further information to the database, working as a

bilateral delivery that will bring feedback to

platform administrators regarding incremental

improvements, layout suggestions, new specific

project advices and other issues.

4 TOOL TEST AND ASSESSMENT

4.1 Tests Description and Main Results

Conferences and workshops can be held for a wide

ARiskDiagnosingMethodologyWeb-basedToolforSME'sandStart-upEnterprises

313

range of purposes, but mostly they have been held

for helping communities or groups of individuals

structuring problematic and supporting action plan

or in the decision processes. Yet, a common purpose

of these thematic gatherings is also to attain ideas

and visions that are suitable as basis for the strategy

development processes to be carried out by a certain

community (Vidal, 2009). Therefore these meetings

are learning and creative substantiated, producing

outcomes from each participant contribution.

The Spotrisk® tool was developed by a

Portuguese SME, developer of products and services

in the solar photovoltaic industry - WS Energia -

who shared the exposed difficulties of risk

management in their SME practices and the need of

having an integrated and early stage risk perception,

management and response approach of their

projects. So, the first tool test was carried out with

six projects within the company, through an

individual evaluation made by each of the six

collaborators inserted in the respective project. The

evaluated projects, despite pertaining within the

same company, were able to reach different areas

and components, such as operational, research &

development and financial departments, providing a

preliminary test regarding the universal content of

the goal oriented questionnaire.

The first results obtained showed that the

purpose of a web integration of a tool could directly

and effectively support the use of risk management

practices, and that the easy access and little time

expenditure involved could be the most suitable

approach towards SME’s.

Aiming to test the Spotrisk® tool, and check

their potential coverage and utility for other

organizations, outside the energy cluster, a risk

management workshop was carried out for start-up

enterprises and SME’s, in Madam Park, a start-up

incubator in Almada, Portugal. This event took place

with a total of 14 participants. As exposed in Table 4

the participants covered several selected areas such

as start-up incubator representatives, SME’s

managers, risk academic experts and researchers.

The workshop

was opened with an initial

insertion of what was the main purpose of the work

to be done, followed by a brief individual

introduction of each of the participants.

Table 4: Participants’ professional domains.

Main Domain Participantes

Academic 4

SME’s Enterprises 6

Start-up Enterprises 4

Afterwards a brainstorm session took place, aiming

to list the main risks experienced by each of the

interveners and respective categorization, where

different issues were pointed out, such as human

resources, intellectual property, deadlines or market

inexperience, which would help later to grasp the

tool.

Then a brief presentation from a representative

from a Lisbon start-up incubator was carried out,

regarding the main difficulties felt in their project on

the initial phase. Hereafter, the theoretical

components bonded to a conformed risk

management process where introduced in order to

insight the participants upon the project risk

management professional standards and existing

models.

Lastly the Spotrisk® tool was then presented and

each participant used the platform to evaluate a

particular project being held or in which they had

been inserted in their professional life. Then all the

14 projects were compared and the risk profiles were

analyzed, collecting sundry project risk profile

average results. The lowest and highest results were

respectively 1.74 and 3.82, which led to a

conversation regarding the reasons underneath the

values found in each project, where it was concluded

for example that the lowest result of 1.74 was in fact

due to the nature of project analyzed, holding very

safe conditions from several investors and

institutions.

In the end a debate took place, where some

appreciations were dealt regarding the value that

Spotrisk® could bring to SME’s and start-up

enterprises, as well as some improvements and

suggestions on the platform’s performance.

4.2 Spotrisk® Evaluation

During the workshop, each participant received a

small survey to set down some considerations upon

the most interesting aspects, as well as suggestions

and ideas regarding the improvement of the

presented tool. They were also asked to fill a small

evaluation table, in order to assess a few specific

Table 5: Spotisk® workshop assessment results.

Item mean min max

Usability 3,4 2 4

Comprehension 3,5 3 4

Appearance 3,5 3 5

Potential Utility 4,6 4 5

Overall Appreciation 3,9 3 5

KMIS2013-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing

314

aspects. Table 5 presents summarized the main

assessment values obtained from the 14 workshop

participants, where they evaluated individually, in

writing, platform’s aspects such as “Usability”,

“Comprehension”, “Appearance”; “Potential

Utility” and “Overall Appreciation”, with a scale

from 1 (very bad) to 5 (excellent).

From the results gathered, the average numbers

obtained suggest that the strongest feature of the

platform is the potential utility to users, while the

aspect which needs more improvement is the

usability associated with the navigation in the web-

platform.

Additional feedback was also brought driven by

the awareness given to the participants through the

process of answering the goal oriented

questionnaire. Appreciations were rendered by

participants affirming that the questionnaire

provided to them the possibility of contemplating

risks and events that they would never have directly

thought before. These appreciations suggest that the

simple action of answering to the questionnaire per

se provides the user an important awareness of some

critical risks inherent to a project. Therefore, as it

was also inputted through the contribution of the

segment of start-up incubators, that this risk

assessment tool can compose an ideal tool for start-

up incubators, for it brings important awareness to

individuals who normally were never exposed to the

exerted situations.

5 MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND

FURTHER WORK

This paper sought to present a tool to help filling the

gap over SME’s risk management practices,

proposing a useful and pragmatic approach to assess

risks of innovative projects, provided on an RDM

based risk appraisal on a web platform. The

proposed, Spotrisk® tool intended to provide an

integrated and early stage risk perception and

response tool, designed to SME’s but which recent

assessment test results indicated that the tool can

also be successfully applied to start-up enterprises.

Through the collected results it can be expect

that the simple action of answering the developed

questionnaire per se may provide the user an

important awareness of critical risks inherent to a

project, showing strong potential as to be an

important tool for start-up incubators, due to the fact

that the start-up enterprises associated are promptly

the ones with less notion and tangibility with the

market. Therefore, besides making a capable risk

assessment and generating factual risk strategies, the

platform can also bring important awareness to

individuals who, in most of the cases, were never

exposed to exerted situations and events within an

innovative project.

These first empirical results provides us the

means to a favorable integration of an universal tool

to support innovative projects development on

SME’s, regarding that the sample held embraced

several distinct areas. Yet, it remains as a pending

operation to extend the evidence of the universality

of the goal oriented issues integrated in the platform.

Also, it stands as future research to extend the list of

specific advices, linked to a group of concrete

actions to attend to risks accordingly, so that SME’s

may be driven thoroughly and systematically to

suitable risk management practices.

Further investigation is also needed regarding the

analysis of perceived risk profiles, in order to be

able to control risk tendencies, cognitive bias and

propensity into the decision making. Also, future

research can be held in order to embrace several

approaches, such as the integration of the platform in

other project management modules, connecting risk

management practices within project management

general operations, or it can also be developed a

filtering of the project assessment per project type,

being able to approach a more valid series of issues

regarding a specific project.

Finally, a research on the possibility of

differentiation of the goal responses by threats and

opportunities, being able to relativize the impact

positive or negative (or both) of the risks associated,

can be attended.

Due to the fact that it dwells as a cloud based

interface, it is expected that: on one side, Spotrisk®

will evolve with the users’ activity in the platform,

contributing incrementally with proactive feedback;

on the other hand it will encourage companies to use

tools to systematically improve the risk

identification and management processes, associated

with the development of new products and services.

Hopefully, these tools will generate a positive

impact by reducing project’s costs, raising success

rates, along with the entraining of a higher number

of innovative projects into market.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding by

QREN, FEDER and PorLisboa, Ministério da

Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior, FCT,

ARiskDiagnosingMethodologyWeb-basedToolforSME'sandStart-upEnterprises

315

Portugal, under grants WS NPT QREN - LISBOA-

01-0202-FEDER-011999.

REFERENCES

Aleixo, G. G., & Tenera, A. B. (2009). New Product

Development Process on High-Tech Innovation Life

Cycle. World Academy of Science, Engineering and

Technology, 58, 794-800.

Black, J. (2003). Oxford Dictionary of Economics. Oxford.

Brancia, A. (2011). SMES Risk Management: An

Analysis of the Existing Literature Considering The

Different Risk Streams. 8th AGSE International

Entrepreneurship Research Exchange, 225-239.

Di, Y. (2010). Study on the Mechanism of Project

Integrated Risk Management for Technological

Innovation Project. International Conference on

Information Management, Innovation Management

and Industrial Engineering, 2, 197-201.

Ebrahim, N. A., Ahmed, S., & Taha, Z. (2010). SMEs;

Virtual research and development (R&D) teams and

new product development: A literature review.

International Journal of the Physical Sciences, Vol.

5(7), pp. 916-930.

Emmenegger, S., Laurenzini, E., & Thönssen, B. (2012).

Improving Supply-Chain-Management based on

Semantically Enriched Risk Descriptions.

International Conference on Knowledge Management

and Information Sharing , 70-80.

Freel, M. S. (2005). Patterns of innovation and skills in

small firms. Technovation, 25, 123–134.

Ganguly, A. (1999). Business Driven Research &

Development. Palgrave Macmillan.

Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA research on new product

development practices: Updating trends and

benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product

Innovation Management, 14 (6), 429–458.

Henschel, T. (2008). Risk Management Practices Of

SMEs: Evaluating And Implementing Effective Risk

Management Systems. Berlin: Schmidt (Erich).

Janney, J. J., & Dess, G. G. (2006). The risk concept for

entrepreneurs reconsidered: new challenges to the

conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing,

21, 385-400.

Jayathilake. (2012). Risk Management Practices in Small

and Medium Enterprises: Evidence From Sri Lanka.

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research,

2(7), 226-234.

Keizer, J. A., Halman, J. I., & Song, M. (2002). From

experience: applying the risk diagnosing methodology.

The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19,

213–232.

Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2008). Innovation and SMEs:

Misaligned perspectives and goals among

entrepreneurs, academics, and policy makers.

Technovation, 28, 390-407.

Matthews, C. H., & Scott, S. G. (1995). Uncertainty and

planning in small and entrepreneurial firms; an

empirical assessment. Journal of Small Business

Management, 33(4), 34-52.

McKiernan, P., & Morris, C. (1999). Strategic planning

and financial performance in UK SMEs: Does

formality matter. British Journal of Management, 5,

31-41.

Rothwell, R. (1991). External networking and innovation

in small and medium-sized manufacturing firms in

Europe. Technovation, 11(2), 93-112.

Smit, Y., & Watkins, J. A. (2012). A literature review of

small and medium enterprises (SME) risk

management practices in South Africa. African

Journal of Business Management, 6(21), 6324-6330.

Vargas-Hernández, J. G., & García-Santillán, A. (2011).

Management in the Innovation Project. Journal of

Knowledge Management, Economics and Information

Technology, 1(7), 1-24.

Vidal, R. V. (2009). Community facilitation of problem

structuring and decision making processes:

Experiences from the EU LEADER+ programme.

European Journal of Operational Research, 199, 803–

810.

Vos, J., Keizer, J. A., & Halman, J. I. (1998). Diagnosing

Constraints in Knowledge of SMEs. Technological

Forecasting and Social Change, 58(3), 227–239.

Wang, J., Linb, W., & Huangc, Y.-H. (2010). A

performance-oriented risk management framework for

innovative R&D projects. Technovation, 30 (11-12),

601-6011.

Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1992).

Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum

Leaps in Speed, Efficiency and Quality. Free Press.

Yang, C., & Man-li, Z. (2010). Research on product

innovation project risk identification thought. 2

Int.

Conference on Information Science and Engineering

(ICISE), 3056-3059.

Yun-hong, H., Wen-bo, L., & Xiu-ling, X. (2007). An

Early Warning System for Technological Innovation

Risk Management Using Artificial Neural Networks.

Int. Conference on Management Science &

Engineering, 14, 2128-2133.

KMIS2013-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing

316

APPENDIX

Spotrisk’s Goal Oriented Questionnaire

1.Idea Stage

1. The idea has a clear business proposition: operational, cost, product, customer or resource leadership.

2. The idea has “springboard potential” (i.e. good prospects to become products or services).

3. The idea has a value proposition with unique points, clear for buyers and partners.

4. The idea is based on a solid market research.

5. The project team has listed all the characteristics that the intended client seeks in the product/service.

6. The target market is well defined and there are clearly described channels.

7. There is a proposal for an effective action plan including eventual contingencies.

8. The team has clearly identified channels to access external knowledge and skills regarding technology,

marketing and management.

9. Outsourcing solutions have been identified and are available.

10. The idea is free of eventual property rights disputes.

11. Possible ideas under development from competitors have been described.

12. There is a clear list of competitors by market segment.

2.Feasibility Stage

1. The team possesses the critical competences to develop, produce and market the intended product/service.

2. Partners will deliver in time, with all the specifications as agreed upon.

3. Organization and relations within the team members and partners are clear and goal oriented.

4. The product/service will meet all requirements in terms of licenses, safety, environment, regulations, or others.

5. The company is ready to provide future after sales services.

6. The product/service will satisfy demands and expectations from stakeholders and external bodies/agencies.

7. Financial resources are guaranteed to develop the product/service.

8. The product/service can be delivered with prices that are acceptable to buyers.

9. The product/service will contribute to the long term financial position of the company.

3.Capability Stage

1. There is a clear production/supply process to provide a reliable product delivery.

2. Future scaling up of process has been clearly addressed and described.

3. Prototypes of the product/service have been tested to reach clear pre-defined criterion.

4. Schedule and costs are realistic and achievable.

5. Sales projections for the new product/service are based on consistent data.

6. There is contingency plan to correct schedule and cost deviations along the project.

4.Launch Stage

1. There is an action plan to react to competitors’ response to the introduction of the product/service.

2. The roll out of the product/service will happen as planned without information leaks.

3. There is a plan to increase and protect the barriers that the new product/service will create against competitors.

4. The key opinion makers are identified and assured.

5. There is a clear process to measure the product acceptance and marketing & sales.

6. There is a clear strategy to spread the marketing information through multiple channels.

7. A clear ratio of cost/income will be monitored during the launch processes.

8. A financial budget and monthly burn-rate thresholds are clearly defined.

ARiskDiagnosingMethodologyWeb-basedToolforSME'sandStart-upEnterprises

317