the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Co-RISK: A tool to co-create impactful university-industry projects for natural hazard risk mitigation
Michiel van Meeteren
Abstract. Translation of geoscience research into tangible changes, such as modified decisions, processes or policy in the wider world is an important yet notably difficult process. Illustratively, university-based scientists and professionals work on different timescales, seek different insights and may have a substantial cognitive distance between them. The work on Co-RISK reported in this paper is motivated by an ongoing need for mechanisms to aid this translation process. Co-RISK is an accessible (i.e. open access, paper-based, zero cost) ‘toolkit’ for use by stakeholder groups within workshops. Co-RISK has been developed to aid the co-creation of collaborative inter-organizational projects to translate risk-related science into modified actions. It is shaped to avoid adding to a proliferation in increasingly complex frameworks for assessing natural hazard risk and is given a robust basis by incorporating paradox theory from organisation studies, which deals with navigating the genuine tensions between industry and research organizations that stem from their differing roles. Specifically designed to ameliorate the organizational paradox, a Co-RISK workshop draws up ‘Maps’ including key stakeholders (e.g. regulator, insurer, university) and their positionality (e.g. barriers, concerns, motivations), and identifies exactly the points where science might modify actions. Ultimately a Co-RISK workshop drafts simple and tailored project-specific frameworks that span from climate to hazard, to risk, to implications of that risk (e.g. solvency). The action research approach used to design Co-RISK, its implementation in a trial session for the insurance sector and its intellectual contribution are described and evaluated. The initial Co-RISK workshop was well received, so application is envisaged to other sectors (i.e. transport infrastructure, utilities, government). Joint endeavours enabled by Co-RISK could fulfil the genuine need to quickly convert the latest insights from environmental research into real-world climate change adaptation strategies.
- Preprint
(2922 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(13140 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
John Hillier and Michiel van Meeteren
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1251', Marleen de Ruiter, 25 Jul 2023
I would like to thank the authors for an interesting and very timely paper. There is a lot of talk in the risk field on how to improve university-industry knowledge transfers. The developed toolkit provides a means to bridge the gap.
General comments
- Originating from the insurance / financial risk sector where there is presumably a strong link between the sector and climate/hazard research (and knowledge and understanding about doing research in general), I wondered how the authors see the adaptability of the toolkit to sectors less acquainted with risk research? It is mentioned that application of co-risk to other sectors is envisaged. What do the authors see as main challenges/differences/similarities when comparing application in different sectors?
- How did the focus topic selection for this trial come about? Who was involved in formulating it?
Detailed comments
- 108: as a reader who is unfamiliar with organizational studies, I was wondering if it would benefit the paper to (briefly) introduce the meaning of the paradox theory concept already in line 68.
- 117 I wonder if in more recent studies, stakeholders have been part of the stakeholder mapping. E.g. Bou Nasser et al (2021)’s stage 2: https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/1283/2021/
- Sections 4 and 5 are both called results. Since the aim of the paper is the toolkit, maybe call section 4 something else (although I do understand that the process is also a result)?
- Fig 3. Looks great. I was just wondering why “barrier / constrained” has the thick line in two out of four instances (and in the legend).
- At times, there is quite some repetition. For example, L. 492: the topic of the workshop and L. 212 the aim of Co-Risk.
- Fig 6: I was a bit confused by the caption describing the meaning of the blue and red triangles and squares; maybe this can be simplified by adding a legend to the side of the figure?
Minor comments:
- 30: “would be a mutually beneficial” -> remove “a”
- 96: “tailored and detailed and framework” -> remove second “and”
- 99: “a projects”
- 394: “is both an means” -> a means
- Mixed writing of coopetitive and co-opetitive
- 405: the sentence describing output 2 doesn’t flow well (ditto L. 421)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1251-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply to RC1 & RC2', John K. Hillier, 18 Sep 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1251', Rachel Fisher, 10 Aug 2023
General Comments:
I greatly enjoyed reading this paper. The authors present a novel approach to improving co-operation between academia and different industry stakeholders. The approach is practical and provides a resource for groups to meet and more consistently deliver useful outputs. With the pace at which we need to address climate risk and adapt to changes this tool presents a good starting point for accelerating collaboration.
The approach taken considers the theoretical basis as well as the benefit of action research which makes for an informative and interesting read as well as ensuring the quality of the outputs. There are some areas where the literature can be strengthened as outlined in the next section.
Specific Comments:
Introduction Para 1: To help contextualise the challenge being addressed, the introduction would benefit from additional evidence quantifying the scale of the challenge/opportunity. For Example, what size budgets do insurers assign to R&D with Universities? How much income is from industry for Universities? You can then say that Co-Risk is ensuring the efficient use of this resource by streamlining processes.I enjoyed your coverage of frameworks (lines 77 – 97 page 4)
Figure 2: Feels oversimplistic, perhaps this could be modified to visually capture the detail in the caption text.
Lines 99-103: Either here or in section 2 the literature covered around stakeholder engagement, management and mapping should be extended. This section would benefit from further evidencing what is typical or established in this area, particularly where dedicated tools have been reported on in academic literature. Based on themes raised later on (lines 239/240 & Line 275) it would be beneficial to also discuss literature relating to onboarding of stakeholders and how engagement provides them a sense of ownership and buy-in to support uptake of any resulting process/product. Perhaps look at Phillipson, J., Lowe, P., Proctor, A. and Ruto, E., 2012. Stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange in environmental research. Journal of environmental management, 95(1), pp.56-65.
Section 1 or Section 2 would benefit from presentation of literature around creating communities of practice.
Line 250: Can you provide any more information on success? Perhaps mention integration of the results into the GIST? Or any other modifications to industry standards as a result of the project.
Lines 318-340: Can you be more specific on the difference between participants and partners. I would expect that partners refers to organisations whilst participants refers to individual representatives. Clarify this throughout the paper.
Line 330: the quote feels out of place here perhaps move to 4.1 or intro to 4.2 I think the text here could do with some improvement to make it as clear and effective as the other bullets in this section.
Line 332: Scientific research may sit better after necessary analysis.
Line 345: Should publication change to outputs? To capture outputs that may not be publicised, such as internal briefing documents.
Line 433: This element of investment is not well explained. I’m guessing this was part of the “dragon’s den” section in the workshop. This could be explained better.
Figure 5: the blue input boxes may sit better about (and feeding into) the black outline process boxes (hazard, risk, implications)
Line 500-506: interesting points raised. Were you about to evidence the benefit to newer participants? It would be interesting to include this if so.
Line 513: Explain why this was unsurprising
Line 537: has contributions been changed to outputs? Clarify this? What other changes have been made, if any.
Line 576: Clarify this last sentence. I understand the para shows co-risk has been a success in terms of the first measure stated (line 566)
Line 611: Further context on timelines would be useful here. Also it might be useful context to report how many ideas were generated from task 1
Section 6.1: would benefit from further information on success, specifically the tangible and intangible outputs
Line 681: Ref literature on getting stakeholder buy in (see previous comments)
Line 685: Extension of these ideas around different disciplines, different sectors, different types of environmental challenge and potentially the differences in positionalities in different countries due to different cultural elements.
Technical Corrections:
Be consistent with the use of co-opetition vs. coopetitionFigure 1: Move to after the intext reference
Line 55: add in a reference to Appendix A after introducing TOGETHER
Line 94-97: “The alternative proposed in Co-RISK is to equip participants, potential project colleagues, with knowledge and guidance to prepare their own tailored and detailed and framework spanning from climate knowledge to its implications that is yet simple and useable as it is task-specific, in this case to create an impactful change from scientific research.” >>> The alternative proposed in Co-RISK is to equip participants, potential project colleagues, with knowledge and guidance to prepare their own tailored and detailed framework spanning from climate knowledge through to its implications (figure 1) that is as simple and useable as it is task-specific. Resulting in an impactful change from scientific research. (feel free to change this last short sentence)
Line 99: “key skills in a multi-participant projects” >>> key skills in multi-participant projects
Line 216: trail >>> trial
Line 247: indicate the role of the universities include >>> (research)
Line 308: “A specific dimension for this specific endeavour” >>> A specific dimension for this particular endeavour
Line 333: “mitigate any biases entities positionalities” >>> mitigate any biases that entities’ positionalities
Line 335: Partners or participants?
Line 394: “which is both an means to an end” >>> which is both a means to an end
Line 418: “identified” >>> identify
Line 422-3: “The ostensible purpose of this task is to create a ranked list of most the topics of most interest” >>> The ostensible purpose of this task is to create a ranked list of the majority of topics of the most interest
Line 448: Remove “by”
Line 701: “are” >>> as
Line 725: remove extra space before “Third”
Line 734: “deliver” >>> delivery
Line 739: insert of after partners
Line 740: insert comma after closed bracket
Line 763: insert be after “would”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1251-RC2 -
AC2: 'Please see AC1 above', John K. Hillier, 18 Sep 2023
Our response to the comments of both reviewers is in the pdf for AC1. Please look there.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1251-AC2
-
AC2: 'Please see AC1 above', John K. Hillier, 18 Sep 2023
John Hillier and Michiel van Meeteren
John Hillier and Michiel van Meeteren
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 189 | 66 | 16 | 271 | 22 | 6 | 7 |
- HTML: 189
- PDF: 66
- XML: 16
- Total: 271
- Supplement: 22
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1