| Literature DB >> 31554315 |
Volodymyr Polishchuk1, Miroslav Kelemen2, Beáta Gavurová3, Costas Varotsos4, Rudolf Andoga5, Martin Gera6, John Christodoulakis7, Radovan Soušek8, Jaroslaw Kozuba9, Jakub Hospodka10, Peter Blišťan11, Stanislav Szabo12.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to develop a fuzzy model of the risk assessment for environmental start-up projects in the air transport sector at the stage of business expansion. The model developed for the following software will be a useful tool for the risk decision support system of investment funds in financing environmental start-up projects at the stage of market conquest. Developing a quantitative risk assessment for environmental start-up projects for the air transport sector will increase the resilience of making risk decisions about their financing by the investors. In this paper, a set of 21 criteria for assessing the risk of launching environmental start-up projects in the air transport sector were formulated for the first time by presenting inputs in the form of a linguistic risk assessment and the number of credible expert considerations. The fuzzy risk assessment model, based on expert knowledge, uses linguistic variables, reveals the uncertainty of the input data, and displays a risk assessment with linguistic interpretation. The result of the paper is a fuzzy model that is embedded in a generalized algorithm and tested in an example risk assessment of environmental start-up projects in the air transport sector.Entities:
Keywords: air transport sector; decision support systems; decision-maker (DM); environmental start-up project; expert evaluation; expert systems; financial investments; fuzzy model; risk assessment
Year: 2019 PMID: 31554315 PMCID: PMC6801935 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16193573
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Input data.
| The Name of the Criteria |
|
| … |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| … |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| … |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| … |
|
|
Definition of the criteria and their groups.
| Criteria Groups | Label of Criteria | Definition of Criteria |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| The risk of losing a large client (the absence of signed contracts with aviation enterprises or companies operating in the air transport industry); |
|
| Risk of losing the supplier of raw materials (replacing the supplier is always accompanied by new risks arising from the new relationship); | |
|
| The risk of losing market share (the market is likely to acquire new environmental start-ups of air transport, which is likely to take away customers); | |
|
| The risk of unsecured resources (this risk is linked to inappropriate formation of resource stocks, particularly the expansion of production). | |
|
|
| The risk of lowering the level of management (when the leaders of the start-up team act in their own interest, forgetting the initial arrangements among investors); |
|
| The risk of lowering the quality of the processes in the start-up team (mainly due to the loss of motivation of the team members, which directly affects the quality of the work); | |
|
| The risk of reducing productivity of the start-up team (occurs when there is a crisis in the system of motivation); | |
|
| Personnel risks (aspects related to lack of skilled workers, violations of labor, and executive discipline). | |
|
|
| The risk of inefficiency of investment (when the investment cost is higher than the return on investment); |
|
| Risk of failing to achieve return on investment capital (failure to reach projected return on project start-up); | |
|
| The risk of disrupting the timing of the creation of production assets (delay in commissioning production assets— a typical violation of project investment plans); | |
|
| The risk of exceeding the amount of investment costs (a characteristic defect of the financial plan and of the part responsible for calculating the investment costs, usually due to lack of detail in business planning); | |
|
| The risk of a lack of investment capital (closely linked to the previous risk and accompanied by a threat to the cost of financing the project). | |
|
|
| Risk of loss (arises in relation to price changes when sudden expenses cover revenue); |
|
| The risk of losing of solvency (perhaps a large-scale payment, which was not considered and, therefore, was not prepared for, or when there is a force majeure need for large-scale payments). | |
|
| The risk of a suboptimal capital price (when it results in higher financial cost than operating profit). | |
|
|
| The risk of ineffective new innovative investments (when the investment cost is higher than the return on innovation performance); |
|
| The risk of ineffective new innovative ideas (innovative upgrading of environmental start-up projects must focus on increasing sales trend); | |
|
| Risks of violating the conditions of development of environmental start-up projects (the period of implementation of innovations is measured in months and weeks, where a delay means losing market); | |
|
| Risks of technological environmental start-up projects (the risk relates to the technology of organizational change, when insufficient attention paid to the transition to the stages of change resulted in the failure of implementation); | |
|
| Risk of resource scarcity when designing environmental start-up projects (sometimes the difficulty of accessing scarce resources by these specialists may be considered specialized, as well as technologies and components whose access is limited) is overlooked. |
Fragment of knowledge base.
| № Rules |
|
|
|
|
| Resulting Term Evaluation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | L1 | L | L | L | BA2 | L |
| 2 | L | L | L | BA | BA | |
| 3 | L | L | L | BA | L | |
| 4 | L | L | BA | BA | L | |
| 5 | L | L | BA | L | L | |
| 6 | L | BA | BA | L | L | |
| … | … | … | … | … | … |
1 “low risk”, 2 “risk below average”.
Input expert evaluation risk of start-up projects.
| Criteria Groups | The Name of the Criteria |
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
| L1 | 0.6 | L | 0.9 | BA2 | 0.8 |
|
| BA | 0.7 | L | 0.8 | BA | 0.6 | |
|
| BA | 0.8 | L | 0.7 | L | 0.4 | |
|
| A3 | 0.6 | BA | 0.9 | L | 0.8 | |
|
|
| A | 0.6 | L | 0.8 | BA | 0.6 |
|
| A | 0.9 | A | 0.4 | BA | 0.8 | |
|
| A | 0.8 | L | 0.7 | A | 0.8 | |
|
| BA | 0.7 | BA | 0.8 | BA | 0.8 | |
|
| AA4 | 0.9 | L | 0.8 | BA | 0.7 | |
|
| A | 0.7 | L | 0.8 | A | 0.6 | |
|
|
| 0.6 | BA | 0.8 | A | 0.7 | |
|
| AA | 0.9 | L | 0,7 | L | 0.9 | |
|
| L | 0.6 | BA | 0.6 | BA | 0.6 | |
|
| A | 0.8 | L | 0.7 | BA | 0.7 | |
|
|
| AA | 0.7 | BA | 0.6 | BA | 0.6 |
|
| AA | 0.6 | L | 0.8 | BA | 0.8 | |
|
|
| BA | 0.8 | BA | 0.6 | A | 0.5 |
|
| A | 0.9 | BA | 0.8 | BA | 0.6 | |
|
| A | 0.8 | BA | 0.8 | A | 0.8 | |
|
| BA | 0.7 | BA | 0.7 | A | 0.8 | |
|
| A | 0.6 | L | 0.8 | BA | 0.8 | |
1 “low risk”, 2 “risk below average”, 3 “average risk”, 4 “risk above average”.
The results and aggregated estimates of expert confidence.
| Criteria Groups |
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| BA | 0.63 | L | 0.8 | L | 0.53 |
|
| A | 0.77 | BA | 0.43 | BA | 0.73 |
|
| A | 0.33 | L | 0.77 | BA | 0.5 |
|
| AA | 0.65 | L | 0.75 | BA | 0.77 |
|
| BA | 0.63 | BA | 0.73 | BA | 0.63 |
The generalized ratings.
| Groups of Criteria |
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 23.55 | 0.7645 | 10.26 | 0.8974 | 7.73 | 0.9227 |
|
| 43.22 | 0.5678 | 18.26 | 0.8174 | 24.5 | 0.755 |
|
| 38.12 | 0.6188 | 9.91 | 0.9009 | 22.5 | 0.775 |
|
| 67.45 | 0.3255 | 9.7 | 0.903 | 24.19 | 0.7581 |
|
| 23.55 | 0.7645 | 24.5 | 0.755 | 23.64 | 0.7636 |