Dostoevsky Omsk State University , Omsk , Russia
The aim of the study is to develop methodological assessment tools for assessing the scientific and technological risks of manufacturing enterprises technological integration. Key provisions of the theory of management, the theory of organization, and modern risk theories were chosen as fundamental research methods. The methodological basis was made up of instrumental, process, resource and matrix approaches. A wide range of research methods were used in the study: descriptive method, method of generalization and abstraction, method of classification and argumentation, and analytical and graphical method. The theoretical results of the study are the disclosure of key criteria that should comply with the methodology for assessing the scientific and technological risks of participants in technological integration. Theoretical justification of classification characteristics of scientific and technological risks is given, that allows to identify advantages of quantitative assessment of risk situation. The practical results of the study are analytical assessment of scientific and technological risks of technological integration of manufacturing enterprises, based on quantitative methods. A method of assessing scientific and technological risks is proposed, it will be based on the analysis of risk events in order to identify the possible amount of damage from the onset of these risk events and the likelihood of their occurrence. The advantages of the proposed methodology for quantifying scientific and technological risks related to the possibility of regulating the classification of risks available to participants in technological integration are justified. The classification of scientific and technological risks allows to expand the range of analyzed risks for the participants of technological integration, as well as to apply operational monitoring to identify new risk areas
0
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.