Risk Assessment

Order Description

Please see Unit information guide attached for assessment 3 Risk Assessment report.

1. Develop and justify a risk assessment structure
2. based on risk management framework
complete a risk assessment report
3. provide overview of overall findings and elaborate on one high priority risk in each of the four categories. using the risk matrix map the risks you find important

and justify why each of these risks are of high priority
4. develop and complete a risk assessment form
5. provide constructive recommendations
2500 words. learning outcomes 3,4,5. worth 50%

Assessment 3:  Report Guidelines and advice
Due: 16th January
Word count:  2500
Minimum 10  References

This assessment is the most onerous of the three which  is reflected in the 50% weighting

This assessment requires you to do 3 main things
1) Theoretical context Define Risk management, Explain why risk management is important to a venue? Consider its significance to the various stakeholder’s owners,

operators, staff guests etc.  Different risk management approaches
Adequate academic research, evidence of reading the Study Guide and doing the weekly readings is essential for this.  This was not present in some student’s second

assignments and your mark was let down accordingly.
2) Develop a RAR risk assessment Form for the same area of your venue as you did the VCR for assessment 2 Develop a rating system.
3) Risk Assessment report Complete the risk assessment form,  report on your findings , discuss the impact of the findings and make recommendations.

Please see Sample assignment attached. Please remember this is a sample only. It’s not perfect or complete and will not be appropriate for your venue. You need to

develop your own risk assessment form and do your own research and readings for your report.

Include your completed risk assessment form in the appendices if you are having difficulty keeping to the word count.

Risk Report

Prepared for: Kaikee Madan
Prepared by: Madeleine Asphede
Student number: 21881312
Due date: 13 September 2013
Unit: MNG01222

Letter of transmittal
13th September 2013
Mr. Michael Sheridan
The Sebel Pier One
11 Hickson Road
Walsh Bay NSW, Sydney

Dear Mr. Sheridan,

Madeleines Risk and Facilities Management are very greatful for the opportunity to conduct a risk assessment to assist you and your business, as agreed in the contract

dated on the 13th August 2013. The report was conducted by our experienced Risk and Facilities team for Front restaurant, as was required by you. The report was formed

to determine the various risks and the effect on your assets. The report includes recommendations on how to eliminate risks.

We are confident that you are pleased with the outcome and our effort.
Please feel free to contact me personally or our company for any inquiries.

Kind Regards,
Jo Davey
General Manager
Madeleines Risk and Facilities Management

Executive summary
The aim of this report has been to develop a risk assessment for the Front restaurant. The Front restaurant is located within the Sebel Pier One, a five star heritage

listed hotel in the Rocks. The current level of maintenance has been identified to be minimal although procedure such as keeping the restaurant clean and tidy is in

place.
Furthermore the report discusses the importance of risk management to various stakeholders including, owners, management, employees and guests. Duty of care is also

discussed as this is an important part for management and employees within the hotel in order to keep their guests safe.
The report has identified two different risk management approaches including, bottom-up and top-down approach. Further the report explains the process in risk

management including, discover the risk, evaluate it, manage it and look at internal controls.
The risk assessment was done by a checklist in order to easier categorise the risks and assets and the likelihood and severity. Furthermore the report includes

recommendations for the hotel including, robbery, staff training and fire.

Table of Contents

1.    Introduction     4
2.    Facility Overview    5
1.1.    Venue case description    5
1.2.    Area under review     5
1.1.1.    Current level of risk maintenance    5
1.1.2.    Current safety policies and procedures    6
3.    Risk management    6
1.1.    Introduction to Risk management    6
1.2.    Significance to stakeholders    7
1.1.1.    Owner    7
1.1.2.    Management    7
1.1.3.    Employee    7
1.1.4.    Guest    8
1.3.    Duty of Care    8
1.4.    Different risk management approaches    9
3.3.1 Risk process chart    12
3.3.2 AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009    13
4.    The Risk Assessment Report (RAR)    14
1.1.    Risk response and control    14
4.2 Likelihood    15
4.2.1 Likelihood matrix        15
1.2.    Severity    16
4.3.1 Severity matrix    16
1.3.    Risk matrix    16
4.4.1 Risk matrix chart    17
1.4.    Risk Factor Value (RFV)     17
1.5.    RAR checklist    18
1.6.    RAR findings    23
1.1.1.    Primary and secondary risks    23
1.1.2.    Risk to Physical assets    23
1.1.3.    Risk to Non-physical assets    23
1.1.4.    Risk to Human assets    24
1.1.5.    Risk to Finances    24
5.    Recommendations    25
1.1.    Robbery, embezzlement, fraud    25
1.2.    Staff training    25
1.3.    Fire    25
6.    Conclusion    26
7.    Reference list    27

1.    Introduction
The aim of the report is to conduct a risk assessment report for the Front restaurant. The report includes an overview and description of The Sebel Pier One (TSPO) and

the Front restaurant. The report will further describe and explain how risk assessments are important to stakeholder, risk identification process and how to rate a

risk. Furthermore the report includes recommendations that can easily be acted upon by management.
2.    Facility Overview
1.1.    Venue case description
The organisation that will be investigated is TSPO. TSPO is a 5 star heritage listed hotel located at the edge of Dawes Point in the Rocks, right next to Harbour

Bridge, Sydney. TSPO is partly built over the water to get the image of an absolute waterfront hotel with its own pier open for the guests to dine and socialise at.

The hotel has a total of 189 rooms and suits, and 8 function rooms with the capacity to cater for up to 440 guests. TSPO has fitness facilities and one restaurant and

is a pet friendly hotel. In the 1920s’-1980s’, before the hotel was built, the pier was used as a boat terminal and cargo wharf. It then turned into a market place

with restaurants and shops which remained until 1999 when The Sebel Pier One opened that spring. The hotel is today owned by Robert and Ruth Magid but is run by ACCOR

Hotels.
1.2.    Area under review
The report will focus on TSPOs’ indoor restaurant named Front Restaurant, after its unique location. The restaurant is built partly over the water with an outdoor and

an indoor seating area. Front Restaurant specialises in modern Australian cuisine and has a capacity of 60 seated guests.
1.1.1.    Current level of risk maintenance
To keep the restaurant and its financial assets, human assets, physical assets and non-physical assets in an appropriate condition it is important to maintain the

assets and mitigate possible risks in order to keep the risks low. Poor maintenance may lead to risks to staff and customers, risk to the hotels’ image and a risk to

its profitability. Having a planned risk process in place will, many times, be both time efficient in order to manage risks and help the company to save money

(Schinma, Carlucci & Sole 2012). The current level of maintenance of the Front Restaurant is maintained when assets break down or if a major accident in another hotel

has happened. Regular risk assessments are not performed by the hotel.
1.1.2.    Current safety policies and procedures
Safety policies and procedures that are implemented in orientation training include keeping the restaurant clean and tidy to prevent risks along with training

employees on how to perform the tasks in the safest way. First Aid procedures are in place, however only if the managers have authorised with them. Other than this

Front restaurant does not have any particular safety policies and procedures that are known by the staff. Having policies and procedures in place is incredibly

important for everyone’s safety in case a risk becomes reality. Having policies and procedures in place is also suggested to have a slightly calming effect on

employees in case of a risk (HEM 2011).
3.    Risk management
1.1.    Introduction to Risk management
Risk can be defined as a potential harm, discomfort or inconvenience to a venue or its stakeholders. There are two major reasons for implementing risk management, the

reasons are; deciding whether or not to accept a risk and to identify the highest priority risk factor for management to focus on Risk management can be defined as the

processes and structures which are directly aimed to realising potential opportunities while managing potential risks or hazards. A hazard is a source of potential

harm or a threat to the environment, health, lives or to the property (National Research Council 2005, Coombs 2006).

1.2.    Significance to stakeholders
1.1.1.    Owner
Managing risks is one of the most important tasks for an owner in order to succeed with a project. One of the reasons this is important is that it helps maintain a

hotel’s reputation. If a foreseeable hazard was to happen to the hotel without the hotel trying to prevent it, it can be seen as an unsafe place for guests to visit

and they may go somewhere else. This would result in a decrease to the number of guests using the service, which in long-term would decrease the hotel’s profit. Risk

management is also helpful for owners, to help them detect fraud committed by both employees and guests. A positive aspect of conducting an RAR could potentially be

saving insurance costs, provided there are no or limited risks. Risk management is also significant for owners due to the legislation outlining that a duty of care is

present (Health and Safety 2009, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work 2013).
1.1.2.    Management
One of the most important aspects of a risk assessment for management includes making sure the workplace is safe and secure for the employee and themselves. The

assessment also highlights risks that might not be obvious for the employees, which gives management the opportunity to train staff in less obvious areas. Other

important aspects of an RAR are potential for increased profitability when risks are highlighted and removed and, complying with the law, which requires the protection

of employees as far as is ‘reasonably practicable’ (Health and Safety Executive 2013, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work 2013).
1.1.3.    Employee
Conducting an RAR is significant to employees in order to secure their safety at work and increase their performance levels. By conducting an RAR the hotel prevents or

reduces potential injuries or harm to simplify and ensure the employees work. In order to conduct an RAR the hotel ensures the employees that they are working with and

around safe assets and areas. This has been shown to have a motivational effect, as the employees feel appreciated at the workplace (Nguyen & Mutum 2012, Health and

safety Executive 2013).
1.1.4.    Guest
An RAR is significant to ensure the guests safety while visiting the hotel. RAR is also important to conduct to prevent damage happening to the building which may lead

to injuries. By conducting an RAR this can increase the trust in the company and therefore increase its customer base. For customers safety it is important to make

sure furniture, fittings and fixtures are assessed as customers will judge the hotel by its look (Nguyen & Mutum 2012, Health and safety Executive 2013).
1.3.    Duty of Care
Duty of care is a legal duty to take reasonable care so that others are not harmed. Duty of care includes removing foreseeable risks. Duty of care is owed by one

person to another, and can include relationships such as employee to employee and/or employee to guests/visitors. The hotel also owes a duty of care to the employees

and guests to ensure their health, safety and welfare at hotel. The duty of care is breached if the three following statements are satisfied:
•    The risk was foreseeable
•    The risk was not insignificant
•    A reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have taken precautions.
If the duty is breached the hotel will have to pay the plaintiff compensation, depending on the injuries the person suffered (Gibson & Fraser 2013, ADAS 2013).
An example of breaching the duty of care within the hotel may be a water spill. If someone spills water on the floor and the employees are aware of it but do not do

anything about it, including removing it or putting up a sign, the hotel will be held liable if someone slips and hurts themself.
1.4.    Different risk management approaches
It is crucial to identify risks as fast as possible in order to eliminate or minimise damages and harm. Deciding on the appropriate risk management approach depends on

the individual circumstances and can therefore be different in different organisations. Bajaj (2003) suggests that there are two different risk identification

approaches, bottom-up and top-down approach. The bottom-up approach is an approach that starts by identifying the small problems, including:
•    Financial statement method – by looking at the financial statement the company will be able to look at what areas of the business made an economic loss in the

previous periods and represent potential risks moving forward.
•    Flow chart approach – aims to identify risks by charting the company’s operations and processes.
•    Questionnaire and check-list approach – by producing a check-list of possible events based on past experience and, identifying ways to act in certain

scenarios.
•    Scenario building – developing scenarios to identify possible risks that can occur.
•    Influence diagram – graphical structure that models variables to show different possible outcomes.
The bottom-up approach then links them together to get an overview of the issues (Bajaj 2003, Cognitive Psychology 2013, Awh, Belopolsky & Theeuwes 2012).
(source: Bajaj 2003)
The top-down approach works the opposite way, starting with the identification of the big issues to later separate them into smaller issues. The top-down approach

includes:
•    Case-based approach – using previous experience to identify risks.
•    Aggregate or bottom lime approach – taking the hotel’s basic costs and then adding a contingencies percentage on top of it.
The top-down approach then uses the overview to identify smaller risks within the company (Bajaj 2003, IBM 2013, Cognitive Psychology 2013, Awh, Belopolsky &

Theeuwes).

(source: Bajaj 2003)

Once the approach is determined the following process is followed in order to determine how to manage the risk. The following steps are included in the process:
•    A risk is discovered and reported to management.
•    Management evaluates the risk in order to decide if the risk should be accepted or managed. If the risk is accepted the hotel tolerates the outcome of the

risk. If the risk is to be managed, management implement either external or internal precautions.
•    External precautions include transferring the risk away through insurance policies. Internal precautions include implementing policies and procedures as an

attempt to prevent the risk. This can be done through physical control or staff action, including staff training or make staff aware of their responsibility (Bajaj

2003, IBM 2013)

3.3.1 Risk process chart

(source: DeLoach 2012)

3.3.2 AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009
AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 is the international standard that provides principles and generic guidelines on risk management, which may be used by any public, private or

community enterprise, association, group or individual. The risk processes described above and AS/ANZ ISO 31000:2009 are very similar, and thus highlights the

importance of following this type of process (Standards Australia 2013).
AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 chart

(source: Standards Australia 2013)

4.    The Risk Assessment Report (RAR)
1.1.    Risk response and control
In order to minimise a risk it is essential to control it, and this control can be achieved by following the hierarchy of risk. The hierarchy starts with the most

effective way of controlling a risk and ends with the least effective way. The following stages are included:
•    Eliminate the hazard – includes getting rid of the asset causing the harm.
•    Substitute the hazard – includes replacing the assets with a safer one.
•    Use engineering to control the hazard – includes attaching guards to the asset in order to protect users.
•    Use administrative controls – includes training employees on how to use the asset.
•    Use personal protective equipment – for example providing gloves/goggles when using the asset (NSW Government 2013, Training room 2013).
Risk Hierarchy:
(source: NSW Government 2013)
4.2 Likelihood
Likelihood refers to how likely a risk is to occur. The likelihood of a risk happening is important to identify in order to be able to determine how serious the risk

is. If the likelihood of a risk occurring is low, it might be advisable to accept the risk (Cullen, 2012, Imp-Act 2013, Datta 2001). An example of risk which is

unlikely to happen in the restaurant is guests falling in to the harbour, as there is already a fence in place this is a risk that has been accepted. A risk that is

likely to occur within the restaurant is people slipping. The table below is a likelihood matrix which is used to determine the likelihood of risks:
4.2.1 Likelihood matrix
1    Rare    The likelihood of the risk happening is unlikely. The risk may occur in special circumstances.
2    Unlikely    The likelihood of the risk happening is unlikely. The risk may happen once a year.
3    Possible    The likelihood of the risk happening is possible. The risk happens on a monthly basis.
4    Likely    The likelihood of the risk happening is likely. The risk happens on weekly basis.
5    Almost certain    The likelihood of the risk happening is almost certain. The risk happens on daily basis.

(source: Health and Safety 2009)
1.2.    Severity
Once the likelihood of a risk happening is determined, it is significant to look at the severity of the risk. Severity refers to the consequences caused by the risk.

The more significant the consequence is, the larger impact it has on the business and therefore a higher importance is placed on having the risk removed/avoid (Cullen,

2012, Imp-Act 2013, Datta 2001). An example of a risk with high severity may be if a guest falls in to the harbour, which may require medical treatment.
4.3.1 Severity matrix
1    Insignificant    No effect on production, low finance loss, no injuries.
2    Minor    Minor production effect, medium financial loss, first aid case.
3    Moderate    Significant effect on production, high financial loss, medical treatment required.
4    Major    Major effect on production, major financial loss, lost time injury
5    Catastrophic    Production ceased, huge financial loss, permanent disability.

(source: Health and Safety 2009)
1.3.    Risk matrix
The risk matrices have been suggested to be one of the most efficient tools used to measure the consequences and the likelihood of the risk. A risk matrix shows the

size of the risk and whether or not the risk is controlled (Risk Management Solutions 2013).
4.4.1 Risk matrix chart

(source: Risk Management Solutions 2013)

1.4.    Risk Factor Value (RFV)
Determining the RFV is important as it prioritises the risks in terms of mitigation. RFV is an easy calculation and is done by multiplying the severity with the

likelihood. Although RFV indicates on the risk that needs the most attention there are some errors related to it including;
•    Reversed ranking may occur in cases where qualitatively highly rated risks have low quantitative risk frequencies.
•    Uninformative rakings may occur where small and large risks are ranked at an equal risk severity, due to human errors (Enisa 2013).
1.5.    RAR checklist

.6.    RAR findings
1.1.1.    Primary and secondary risks
Primary risks can be identified as the risk occurring on an everyday basis running a hotel. Consequences of the potential primary risks are detrimental occurrences.
Secondary risk refers to the likely outcome of an action when confronted with a primary risk or a potential risk. An example of secondary risk to humans may be when a

waiter falls and hurts himself and then someone moves him and causes more harm (Hirschhorn 1997).
1.1.2.    Risk to Physical assets
Physical assets are related to buildings and equipment, fixtures, fittings and furnishings, vehicles and gardens and pools. Risks that can occur within the category

can come about from a range of sources including; lack of training or supervision or mishandling of the equipment along with theft and embezzlement. Things such as

unmanaged gardens with trees and shrubbery that can cause damage to humans or other assets due to bushfire also fall in to this category (Sainaghi, Philips & Corti

2013, Investopedia 2013, Stulz 2005). It was found in the RAR checklist that most of the equipment employees use daily involves a risk. Example of daily risks includes

broken draws and uneven floor. Table and chairs involve risks as they are old and can affect the hotels image. Along with the lock and handle on the glass door and

wall, which could cause risks in case of a fire.
1.1.3.    Risk to Non-physical assets
Risk to non-physical assets is an intangible category and can therefore be hard to manage. Non-physical assets include; company reputation, motivation, morale,

customer relations, brand name and brand image, copyrights and agreements. Research has shown that many managers are not aware of non-physical assets to the same

extent as their physical assets. It is therefore important, in order to protect a company’s non-physical assets, to create awareness of their existence and take steps

to eliminate risks (Investopedia 2013, Swartz 2013). It was found in the checklist that the major risks to non-physical assets are the brand name, motivation and

customer relation. If the three areas are not managed properly they may have catastrophically consequences, however if they are managed the risk can be lowered.
1.1.4.    Risk to Human assets
Human assets are a generic name of different stakeholders including; owners and leaders, staff members and management, guests, visitors and sub-contractors. Human

assets have to be managed very carefully. If an accident happens the human victims may include staff and can therefore result in long periods off work, injury

compensations, along with hiring costs of new casual staff. Additionally, incidents involving other stakeholders may be just as expensive as this might include, legal

costs, fines and loss of the business reputation (Executive Advisors 2013, Higgins, 2008). It was found in the checklist that stress is most likely to occur within the

hotel, but will have the least severity. All human risks can easily be managed except robbery, however training might assist the staff in an emergency.
1.1.5.    Risk to Finances
Financial assets are essential to all organisations as this represents the monetary value of the services and investments completed and provided by the organisation

and it is therefore essential to understand risks threatening these assets. The financial assets can be defined as; cash, cheque or credit/debit card, contractual

rights (including receiving cash or other financial assets from guests signing a contract agreeing to pay for a serviced used), internal and external vouchers and

foreign currency. Risks to financial assets vary from burglary, theft, fraud and embezzlement to more diverse risks such as, foreign exchange rates, interest rates and

broken contracts (Adkisson 2011). The risks that were identified through the checklist varied from risk level M to H. To eliminate the risks training has been

suggested where possible and also segregation of duties.
5.    Recommendations
1.1.    Robbery, embezzlement, fraud
In order to avoid robbery, embezzlement and fraud it is important to segregate the employees’ duties, as it is suggested that the majority of the crime is done by the

hotels employees (Harter 2002). Crimes can also be avoided or reduced by implementing security cameras along with unexpected Securitas checks, which prevent staff

bringing assets out of the hotel.
1.2.    Staff training
In order to have a safe work environment for both employee and guests it is important for employees to undertake training. It is recommended that employee get trained

in areas such as if an emergency happens, in order to assist and calm down guests if it does happen. A recommendation with staff training is not to see it as a cost

rather an investment for managers as once employees are train they are able to assist in a more appropriate way.
1.3.    Fire
A fire is one of the largest risks to a hotel. If a fire occurs that is a threat to financial assets, human assets, non-physical assets along with physical assets. In

order to avoid or reduce the risk it is essential to make sure the smoke detectors are changed and checked frequently. It can also be beneficial to frequently test the

evacuation procedures in order to train staff in case of an real emergency.

6.    Conclusion
The aim of the report was to conduct a risk assessment for TSPO. The risk assessment conducted for Front Restaurant includes an overview and description of TSPO and

the restaurant. The has further been describing why risk assessments are important to stakeholder, risk identification processes and how to rate a risk. Furthermore

the report contains recommendations that can easily be acted upon by management.

7.    Reference list
ADAS 2013, Duty of care, viewed 8 September 2013, <https://www.adas.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=118&catid=46&Itemid=117>.
Adkisson, J 2011, Ten Rules For Asset Protection Planning, viewed 12 September 2013, <http://www.forbes.com/sites/jayadkisson/2011/07/13/ten-rules-for-asset-

protection-planning/>.
Awh, E, Belopolsky, A & Theeuwes, J 2012, ‘Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, no. 8, vol.

16, pp. 437-443.
Bajaj, D 2003, ‘Risk management’, in Best, R (ed.), Workplace strategies and facilities management: building in value, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 128-145.
Cognitive Psychology 2013, Top-down and bottom-up theories of perception, viewed 12 September 2013, <http://cognitivepsychology.wikidot.com/cognition:topdown>.
Coombs, W 2006, ‘Unpacking the halo effect: reputation and crisis management’, Journal of Communication Management, no. 2, vol. 10, pp. 123 – 126.
Cullen, S 2012, Risk Management, viewed 8 September 2013, <http://www.wbdg.org/project/riskmanage.php>.
Datta, S 2001, ‘Developing a risk management matrix for effective project planning-An Empirical Study’, Project Management Journal, no. 2, vol. 32, pp. 45 – 48.
DeLoach, J 2012, Key Elements of the Risk Management Process, viewed 12 Septemebr 2013, <http://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/key-elements-of-the-risk-

management-process/>.
Enisa 2013, Risk Assessment, Viewed 12 September 2013, <http://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/risk-management/current-risk/risk-management-inventory/rm-process/risk-

assessment>.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work 2013, Risk Assessment, viewed 9 September 2013, <https://osha.europa.eu/en/topics/riskassessment/index_html>.
Executive Advisors 2013, Risk Management, viewed 9 September 2013, <http://www.executiveadvisors.org/ea_risk.html>.
Gibson, and A & Fraser, D, 2013. Business Law. French Forest: Pearson.
Harter, J 2002, ‘Business-unit-level relationship between satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology,

no. 2, vol. 87, pp. 268-270.
Health and safety 2009, Risk Assessment, viewed 11 September 2013, <http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/hsprograms/risk_assessment.html>.
Health and Safety Executive 2013, Risk Assessment, viewed 9 September 2013, <http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/risk-assessment.htm>.
HEM 2011, Generic Work Health and Safety Policy and Procedure Manual, viewed 11 September 2013, <https://www.hotelemployersmutual.com.au/pubs/forms/Generic-Policy-

Procedure-Manual-Oct-2011.pdf>.
Higgins, K 2008, Protecting Your Human Assets, viewed 12 September 2013, <http://www.foodengineeringmag.com/articles/protecting-your-human-assets>.
Hirschhorn, L 1997, Primary risk, viewed 12 September 2013, <http://www.psyctc.org/mirrors/ispso/1997hirs.htm>.
IBM 2013, Advantages and disadvantages of top-down and bottom-up implementation approaches, viewed 11 September 2013,

<http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/tividd/td/ITIM/SC32-1708-00/en_US/HTML/im460_plan76.htm>.
Imp-Act 2013, Risk management: Integrating SPM into microfinance capacity building, viewed 8 September 2013,

<http://spmresourcecentre.net/iprc/assets/File/risk_management_guidance_note.pdf>.
Investopedia 2013, Definition of ‘Physical Asset’, viewed 12 September 2013, <http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/physicalasset.asp>.
National Research Council 2005, The owner’s role in projects risk management, viewed 8 September 2013, <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11183>.
Nguyen, B & Mutum, D.S 2012, ‘A review of customer relationship management: successes, advances, pitfalls and future’, Business Process Management Journal, no. 3, vol.

19, pp. 400-419.
NSW Government 2013, Hierarchy of controls, viewed 11 September 2013,

<http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/formspublications/publications/Documents/yw_heirarchy_controls_2089.pdf>.
Risk Management Solutions, 2013, Risk Matrices, viewed 12 September, <http://www.cgerisk.com/method-support/risk-assessment/risk-matrices>.
Sainaghi, R Philips, P & Corti, V 2013, ‘Measuring hotel performance: Using a balanced scorecard perspectives’ approach’, International Journal of Hospitality

Management, no. 1, vol. 34, pp. 150-159.
Schiuma, G, Carlucci, D & Sole, F 2013 ‘Applying a systems thinking framework to assess knowledge asstes dynamics for business performance improvement’, Expert systems

with applications, no. 9, vol. 30, pp. 8044-8050.
Standards Australia 2013, Risk management-Principles and guidelines, viewed 12 September 2013, <http://sherq.org/31000.pdf>.
Stulz, R 2005, ‘Rethinking risk management’, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, no. 3, vol. 9, pp. 8 – 25.
Swartz, K 2013, Protecting Intangible Assets, viewed 12 September 2013, <http://www.spacecoastbusiness.com/protecting-intangible-assets/>.
Training room 2013, Controlling risks – the hierarchy of control, viewed 9 September 2013,

<http://toolboxes.flexiblelearning.net.au/demosites/series12/12_09/toolbox12_09/resources/training/book/qg/manageohs/risks_control.htm>.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂