A Risk Diagnosing Methodology Web-based Tool for SME’s and
Start-up Enterprises
Luís Pereira
, Alexandra Tenera
, 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.
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
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®.
2.1 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.
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.
Table 1: Main existing risk management support tools and models.
Name/Year Functionalities Advantages Disadvantages
Iris Intelligence
Organizational integrated risk
management within wide
business practices.
Integration with Microsoft
Cloud based possibility;
Very Expensive;
Designed to manage only
organizational risks.
Risk identification and
assessment with personal
Cloud based (no installation
Visual & User-friendly;
Difficult access;
Organization analysis and
not specific project
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;
Software installation
Project planning, scheduling,
quantitative risk analysis, and
performance measurement.
Add-In association with
Microsoft Project;
Possibility to regulate the risk
No risk identification;
Software installation
Dilatory and slow
Service that aims to provide a
comprehensive understanding of
the risk management basics.
Provides a vast know-how
Shortens the access to existing
Shares information.
Lack of management;
No functionalities in terms
of tool;
Only provides literature
Methodology that through a
series of interviews and a
checklist questionnaire collects
results, allowing a company to
diagnose and manage project’s
Diagnoses thoroughly and
systematically the project’s
Develops technological,
organizational and business
Formulates suitable risk output
Needs a risk facilitator;
Time expenditure;
Difficult access to the
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
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
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
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
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
Figure 2: Innovation Funnel (adapted from: Wheelwright and Clark, 1992; Ganguly, 1999).
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
Capacity to
Severity of the
Answer Value Answer Value Answer Value
very low
very high
very low
very high
very low
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
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
(“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
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” orAllocate 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
Each of the
Level of
Capacity to
Severity of the
At least 2 of 3
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
Figure 4: Print screen of the risk profile of each stage and
its average.
3.3 Benchmarking Discussion
Small rms, 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.
4.1 Tests Description and Main Results
Conferences and workshops can be held for a wide
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
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
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
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
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-
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.
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.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding by
QREN, FEDER and PorLisboa, Ministério da
Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior, FCT,
Portugal, under grants WS NPT QREN - LISBOA-
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,
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,
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–
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),
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
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.
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.