Master risk
Share a risk culture, from the front desk to senior management.
Why this programme
Operational risk rarely comes from one big mistake: it comes from a small habit. Teams manage a business day in which incidents pile up, with decisions that carry over from one round to the next. At the end, the screen shows how information passed on in time did, or did not, prevent the crisis.
Operational risk is defined as the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems or from external events.
What your teams experience
- The risk map: place your major risks on a probability-impact matrix, then compare it with the risk management department’s.
- The chain reaction incident: a minor event escalates and teams decide what happens next at each stage.
- The continuity plan: put the recovery actions after a major outage back in the right order.
- Lessons learned: each team picks one lesson, projected on screen and included in the report.
Each activity opens and closes with a projected cinematic sequence, personalised for your teams. The facilitator sets the pace: nothing moves forward without them.
What the company gains
A risk culture that reaches beyond the specialists, incidents reported earlier, and teams who know their role in the continuity plan.
Organizations lose an estimated 5% of revenue to fraud each year.
Staging written for you
In your client area, a form specific to this programme collects your content: it is built into the challenges and cinematic sequences, exactly as you provide it. The look uses your logo and your colours. Teams are formed on the spot or based on your organisation chart.
Follow-up, up to D+30
Your follow-up dashboard stays with the programme, from the order to the final results.
- After the session: the session report, with the gap between the opening and closing measures.
- At D+7: a reminder asks a few key questions again, and the D+7 report shows what has been retained.
- At D+30: a second reminder, and the D+30 report shows what holds over time.
The sources of this programme
The published research that this programme's games, measures and debriefs refer to. You can check every reference.
- Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768-770. 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768
- Tucker, A. L., & Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Why hospitals don't learn from failures. California Management Review, 45(2), 55-72. 10.2307/41166165
- Cox, L. A. (2008). What's wrong with risk matrices? Risk Analysis, 28(2), 497-512. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x
- Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(6), 551-578. 10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.551
- Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. 10.1126/science.3563507
- Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and failed experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 857-871. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.857
- Comité de Bâle sur le contrôle bancaire (2021). Revisions to the Principles for the Sound Management of Operational Risk ; Principles for Operational Resilience (textes). www.bis.org/
- Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706-725. 10.5465/amr.2000.3707697
- Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. 10.2307/2666999
- Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
- Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
- Howard, G. S. (1980). Response-shift bias. Evaluation Review, 4(1), 93-106. 10.1177/0193841X8000400105
Further reading (6 references)
Other research we drew on to design this programme.
- Power, M. (2009). The risk management of nothing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6-7), 849-855. 10.1016/j.aos.2009.06.001
- Mikes, A. (2009). Risk management and calculative cultures. Management Accounting Research, 20(1), 18-40. 10.1016/j.mar.2008.10.005
- Klein, G. (2008). Performing a project premortem. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 36(2), 103-104. 10.1109/emr.2008.4534313
- Mitchell, D. J., Russo, J. E., & Pennington, N. (1989). Back to the future: Temporal perspective in the explanation of events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2(1), 25-38. 10.1002/bdm.3960020103
- Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press (ouvrage).
- Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the Unexpected (2e éd.). Jossey-Bass (ouvrage).
Shared foundations (12 references)
The mechanics of all our sessions (team play, the debrief, the before-and-after measure, spaced reminders) and the research that also underpins the other programmes in the same specialty or sector.
- Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2005). Can businesses effectively regulate employee conduct? The antecedents of rule following in work settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1143-1158. 10.5465/amj.2005.19573114
- Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D. G., & Toffler, B. L. (1999). Managing ethics and legal compliance: What works and what hurts. California Management Review, 41(2), 131-151. 10.2307/41165990
- Weaver, G. R., & Treviño, L. K. (1999). Compliance and values oriented ethics programs: Influences on employees' attitudes and behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(2), 315-335. 10.2307/3857477
- Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1-31. 10.1037/a0017103
- Parker, C., & Nielsen, V. L. (2009). Corporate compliance systems: Could they make any difference? Administration & Society, 41(1), 3-37. 10.1177/0095399708328869
- Verhage, A. (2009). Compliance and AML in Belgium: A booming sector with growing pains. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 12(2), 113-133. 10.1108/13685200910951893
- Takáts, E. (2011). A theory of "crying wolf": The economics of money laundering enforcement. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 27(1), 32-78. 10.1093/jleo/ewp018
- Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making. JPSP, 48(6), 1467-1478. 10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467
- Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489-528. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x
- Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory & Cognition, 36(3), 604-616. 10.3758/MC.36.3.604
- Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354-380. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
- ACFE (2024). Occupational Fraud 2024: A Report to the Nations. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (rapport). legacy.acfe.com/report-to-the-nations/2024/
Before you book
How is a Corporate Solutions experience different from team building?
It starts from a business objective, not an activity: onboarding new hires, preventing a risk, bringing your commitments to life. It is staged for your company, with your content, your figures and your brand. Your teams play in person, on their phones, while a big screen tells the story and a facilitator runs the room. And it is followed up: the session report, then the D+7 and D+30 reminders in your client area.
Do we need to install an app?
No. Participants scan a QR code and play in their phone's browser. No account, no password, no installation. It works on iPhone and Android.
Is there a limit on the number of participants?
No. The platform adapts to your headcount, from a small team to the whole company, in one or several rooms.