Keywords

1 Introduction

Studying the issues of effective technologies for managing enterprises, which are, thanks to a large number of interacting business processes, a complex organizational system (OS), today is associated with the identification, as well as a comprehensive analysis of goals, indicators of their achievement, as well as risks. Building logical relationships between planning and assessing the likelihood of the onset of the possibility of performing an urgent task, a promising and justified possibility of increasing the efficiency of management [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11].

An approach using logical-probabilistic (LP) modeling [1, 2, 6, 7, 11] is used as a modern toolkit for describing this kind of relationship. One of its advantages is the ability to consider aspects of activities not only from the point of view of economic efficiency but also with a focus on the interests of all parties involved in this process.

Along with LP-modeling to trace the cause-and-effect relationships when a risk situation occurs, it is proposed to use the mechanism for representing the hierarchy of goals and indicators in the form of cascades [12,13,14,15,16,17].

Cascading initially appeared as a tool for specifying goals and indicators for assessing the performance of certain enterprises by specifying general performance criteria for specific divisions. Thus, the responsibility and contribution of each specialized division to the overall strategy of the enterprise are indicated in accordance with the specifics of the work carried out by it. That is, cascading allows you to formulate and clarify goals and indicators for more detailed and consistent tracking of possible deviations from the intended goals from the moment of their occurrence in order to adjust the functionality of the responsible units before correcting an unfavorable situation.

The analysis of the sources devoted to the cascading of goals and indicators allows us to judge its use in most cases in conjunction with a balanced scorecard, which is a strategic management tool [11, 12, 15]. Much more popular and justified in practice is the technology for implementing multilevel management—from strategic to tactical and operational and vice versa. That is an approach in which all strategic goals are subordinated to the evaluative mechanism for maintaining the overall strategy through the implementation of detailed goals at the tactical and operational levels. A description of this mechanism concerning the organization's risks was not found, and therefore the purpose of the work is to form a structure for multi-level management of organizational systems by the joint use of organization risks cascading and LP-modeling [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21].

2 Risk Cascading

Multilevel cascading of risks consists in the formulation of the main strategic goal and its detailed goals at the strategic management level, where failure to achieve goals is considered as a risk. Then, at the tactical level of management, for each goal, the indicators that evaluate it are formulated, and the failure of the indicators to assess the implementation of the goals of the standard values is already used as risks. The operational level of management complements the tactical detailed indicators for assessing the achievement of goals, i.e. breaks down several indicators of the tactical level, specifying them according to various criteria: concerning the structural units responsible for the achievement of the indicator of the normative value; concerning the type of work performed or services provided, etc. At the operational level, risks are the failure of detailed indicators to assess the achievement of targets of standard values. Risk cascading is shown schematically in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Scheme of cascading risks

Full size image

3 Multi-level Risk Management Based on Cascading Risks

It is possible to calculate the detailed indicators for assessing the achievement of goals formulated at the operational level (block 1 “Cascading risks”) using simulation (block 2 “Simulation model”) [7, 10, 11]. Based on the results of simulation experiments, report statistics are generated, based on which a summary table of risk assessment is built, thus, deviations from the standard values ​​of detailed indicators for assessing the achievement of goals are revealed, i.e. possible operational level risks. Based on this information, taking into account the identification of cause-and-effect relationships of the LP-model (block 3), recommendations are developed to prevent the identified risk situations. Taking into account such recommendations allows you to adjust the values ​​of detailed indicators at the operational level by influencing the objects of the system under consideration, which in turn favorably affects the elimination of risk situations at the tactical and strategic levels, i.e. allows you to achieve strategic goals in the future (block 4). On the contrary, ignoring recommendations for adjusting the behavior of the system negatively affects the risks of subsequent periods, provoking their inevitable onset (block 5). Consider the described integration of the proposed approaches for multilevel risk management of an organizational system (Fig. 2). As a subject area, we have chosen a transport logistics enterprise—a cargo port [13, 18, 19].

Fig. 2
figure 2

Block diagram of multi-level OS risk management based on cascading risks, LP-model, and simulation

Full size image

4 Logical-Probabilistic Modeling

The LP-risk model is a set of conceptual models that describe the relationship between OS objects (targets), subjects, and factors of influence [7, 22, 23].

For multilevel risk management, it is of greater interest to identify causal relationships presented on the cascade LP-model (Fig. 3), reflecting scenario LP-models of all three levels of management. Objectives Gccp = (GN1,GN2,…,GN4) correspond to the LP risk models. Objects-targets are the components of Gccp: GN1—to reduce dependence on external loans, GN2—to increase the efficiency of resource use, GN3—to increase the level of corporate social responsibility, GN4—to increase profitability and solvency. According to the concept of using LP risk models for each i-th goal GNi, it is necessary to sequentially construct a risk scenario SRi, L-model LMi, and P-model VMi. Figure 3 shows scenarios of the first level of goal-setting, including the following elements: GN11—to improve the qualifications of employees, GN12—to increase the level of responsibility to consumers, GN21—to optimize the number of port resources, GN31—to increase the level of social protection of personnel, GN41—to ensure the stability of sales, I11—return on assets, I12—the ratio of financial independence, I14– the ratio of absolute liquidity, I24—the ratio of return on equity.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Cascade LP-model of the risk of failure to achieve the strategic goal of the OS (detailed scenarios of the first level of goal-setting, three levels of management)

Full size image

At the strategic level, the logical model LM Sccp of event failure takes the form: Gccp = GN1∨ GN2∨…∨ GN4.

Probability function (P-model) VM Sccp of event failure:

$$ \begin{aligned} P\left\{ {G_{ccp} = 0} \right\} = & P\left\{ {GN_1 = 0} \right\} + P\left\{ {GN_2 = 0} \right\}\left( {1 - P\left\{ {GN_1 = 0} \right\}} \right) + P\left\{ {GN_3 = 0} \right\} \\ & \left( {1 - P\left\{ {GN_l = 0} \right\}} \right)\left( {1 - P\left\{ {GN_2 = 0} \right\}} \right)P\left\{ {GN_4 = 0} \right\}\left( {1 - P\left\{ {GN_1 = 0} \right\}} \right) \\ & \left( {1 - P\left\{ {GN_2 = 0} \right\}} \right)\left( {1 - P\left\{ {GN_3 = 0} \right\}} \right). \\ \end{aligned} $$

The logical and probabilistic models of the first level of goal-setting at the operational level will be identical to the corresponding models of the tactical level. This is because the scenarios of the first level of goal-setting of the operational level of management did not change relative to the tactical level. After all, they contain indicators that are not detailed by any criteria (indicators of the first level). That is why the following is true.

$$ LM^{o} = LM_{ccp}^{T}:G_{ccp} = I_1^1 \vee I_1^2 \vee GN_3 \vee I_1^4 \vee I_2^4.$$
$$ \begin{aligned} & VM_{cp}^o = {\text{ }}VM_{ccp}^T : \\ & P\left\{ {G_{ccp} = 0} \right\} = P\left\{ {I_1 ^1 \ne I_{1norm} ^1 } \right\} + P\left\{ {I_1 ^2 \ne I_{1norm} ^2 } \right\}\left( {1 - P\left\{ {I_1 ^1 \ne I_{1norm} ^1 } \right\}} \right) \\ & + P\left\{ {GN_3 = 0} \right\}\left( {1 - P\left\{ {I_1 ^1 \ne I_{1norm} ^1 } \right\}} \right)\left( {1 - P\left\{ {I_1 ^2 \ne I_{1norm} ^2 } \right\}} \right) \\ & P\left\{ {I_1 ^4 \ne I_{1norm} ^4 } \right\}\left( {1 - P\left\{ {I_1 ^1 \ne I_{1norm} ^1 } \right\}} \right)\left( {1 - P\left\{ {I_1 ^2 \ne I_{1norm} ^2 } \right\}} \right) \\ & \left( {1 - P\left\{ {GN_3 = 0} \right\}} \right)\left( {1 - {\text{ }}P\left\{ {I_1 ^4 \ne I_{1norm} ^4 } \right\}} \right). \\ \end{aligned} $$

The remaining levels of goal-setting are represented by goals GN121—increase the level of environmental protection, GN122—increase the level of interaction with local authorities, GN123—improve the quality of loading and unloading operations, GN1231—timely execution of loading and unloading operations [24]. A complete list of indicators for assessing achievement with an indication of the criteria for their detailing (if any) at the operational level is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Cargo port performance indicators and criteria for their detailing
Full size table

As the structural subdivisions of the port within the framework of this study, we will take the following: cargo operations department, warehouse complex, commercial department, tally department, technical department, supporting departments, and port management. The following are considered as interesting types of services provided by the port: transshipment of goods, storage of goods, freight forwarding by rail, and road transport. The considered cargo port carries out the loading of the following types of cargo: sand, asbestos, sheet iron, and iron channel.

Let us consider, for comparison, the scenario models of the risk of failure to achieve the strategic goal of the cargo port of the tactical (Fig. 4) and operational (Fig. 5) management levels, including all levels of goal-setting [6, 7, 10, 11].

Fig. 4
figure 4

Model of tactical scenarios of risks of failure to achieve goals associated with the main strategic goal of the cargo port

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Model of operational scenarios of risks of failure to achieve goals associated with the main strategic goal of the cargo port

Full size image

A visual comparison of the tactical and operational level scenarios allows us to make sure that the operational level scenarios extend the tactical level scenarios by including new scenarios of detailed indicators that have a direct impact on the corresponding elements of the scenario of the previous goal-setting level. At the operational level, the failure of an event may be evidenced by the failure of at least one of the indicators detailing it according to the selected criterion (Tab. 1) indicators of its normative value.

As an example, consider the LP-model of the complex indicator I112 “Number of regular customers”, detailed at the operational level by type of service (transshipment, storage, and forwarding of goods) on I1121, I1122,and, I1123 respectively.

$$ LM_{1^o 12} : I_1^{12} = I_1^{121} \vee I_1^{122} \vee I_1^{123}.$$
$$ \begin{aligned} & VM_{{112}} ^{o}: \\ & P\left\{ {I_1 ^{12} \ne I_1 ^{12} norm} \right\} = P\left\{ {I_1 ^{121} \ne I_1 ^{121} norm} \right\} + P\left\{ {I_1 ^{122} \ne I_1 ^{122} norm} \right\} \\ & \left( {1 - P\left\{ {I_1 ^{121} \ne I_1 ^{121} norm} \right\}} \right){\text{ }}P\left\{ {I_1 ^{123} \ne I_1 ^{123} norm} \right\} \\ & \left( {1 - P\left\{ {I_1 ^{121} \ne I_1 ^{121} norm} \right\}} \right)\left( {1 - P\left\{ {I_1 ^{122} \ne I_1 ^{122} norm} \right\}} \right). \\ \end{aligned} $$

5 Conclusion

A distinctive feature of the proposed mechanism is the ability to predict the occurrence of undesirable situations in subsequent periods at the operational stage of management, i.e. at other levels of government. Predictions of a similar nature by monitoring the corresponding values ​​of risks of failure to achieve goals and standard values ​​of indicators make it possible to develop recommendations for adjusting the values ​​to prevent negative risk situations in future periods. It is this multilevel approach to management that will result in the achievement of the set strategic goals and, thus, lead the organization to consistently effective development.