4.3 Results of the Study
4.3.2 Perceptions on the Effectiveness of ERM Adoption
In this study, perceptions are the major focus of the researcher in the attempt to obtain findings and answers. Perceptions in this study refer mainly to the amount of knowledge and level of awareness of the participants about the topic of ERM in higher education. These perceptions of the study participants were obtained through either survey questions or interview questions, designed purposefully in a way to avail from the respondents’ knowledge about the subject, as well as to define the level of their awareness about its elements and components.
The participants of the survey were asked about their awareness of or reasons for adopting ERM, based on the reasons and elements generally cited in the ERM literature. The first groups of survey items (A- 1: Q8 to Q17 – see Appendix 2), in addition to Q7, were all focused on generating evidence to understand the respondents’ awareness of the adoption of a clear risk management policy or ERM framework by their selected universities.
The answers of respondents to these questions will be used to understand the level of involvement and engagement of the selected institutions regarding their adoption of effective ERM as their chosen QA programme. In terms of ERM adoption, the answers to Q7 are analysed to provide evidence of the level of adoption of the respondents at their respective institutions, as shown in Table 4.7. Sixty percent of all administrator respondents, and 42.4% of all faculty members (and 47.8% of those who identified themselves as both administrators and faculty members) in the selected universities chose “Risk reporting” as one of their major roles in their institution. “Performing risk evaluation” came second in the sum of all responses, where 75.6% of all administrators and 56% of all faculty members opted for this task as one of their major duties in their selected institutions. This shows a very good percentage, which informs on the level of risk management adoption in the selected universities. With “Risk reporting” and “Performing risk evaluation” being at the top of the participants’ selection, the researcher concludes that building and designing a risk management policy or framework are already existing functions mandated by senior management decision-making, where only routine risk management actions are left for the lower-level staff at the selected institutions.
As stated earlier, in terms of ERM adoption, the data in Table 4.7 provide some evidence that indicates the level of understanding and awareness of the respondents of ERM adoption at their respective institutions. While the number of choices vary, they all show that at least some level of ERM adoption is evident in all the selected institutions.
Additionally, in terms of ERM adoption, from the answers to Q9 it is found that the actual corresponding term for risk management and QA functions used by the selected institutions has been determined. In order to give the survey participants more freedom in determining the corresponding term, and because more than one designation can be assigned to one QA function, the researcher gave the respondents the option to select more than one answer for Q9. The majority of all respondents (74.5% of the respondents in the selected public universities and 69.8% of the respondents in the selected private universities) opted for the term “Risk Management”. At the same time, 63.8% of the respondents in the selected public universities and 35.8% of the respondents in the selected private universities also went for “Enterprise Risk Management/ERM” as the term used to denote the QA function at their institutions, in addition to
“Risk Management” (see Table 4.12). This gives a good indication that ERM identifies itself in a clear place across the corporate functions of UAE public universities rather than private universities. However, in all cases, the statistical results and themes obtained from the document analysis and interviews indicate that UAE HEIs seem to still be uncomfortable with using the term “ERM” and are more comfortable
using the term “Risk Management”. The following tables give an indication of the nature of the QA function being identified in terms of adoption and implementation in the selected universities.
Table 4.11 – Actual Corresponding Term Used for Risk Management and QA Programme Implementation
Statement Count Order (descending)
RM 73 1. Risk Management (RM)
ERM 49 2. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM)
SRM 12 3. Quality Assurance (QA)
QA 46 4. Strategic Risk Management (SRM)
All of the above 2 5. All of the above
Other; no idea 2 6. Other; no idea
Table 4.12 – Actual Corresponding Term used for Risk Management and QA Programme Implementation by Institution Type
Statement Public (47) Private (53)
Missing
# % # %
RM 35 74.5% 37 69.8% 0
ERM 30 63.8% 19 35.8% 0
SRM 4 8.5% 8 15.1% 0
QA 23 48.9% 22 41.5% 1
All of the above 1 2.1% 1 1.9% 0
Other; no idea 0 0.0% 2 3.8% 1
Table 4.13 – Actual Corresponding Term Used for Risk Management and QA Programme Implementation by Years of Application
Statement Initial (15) Moderate (70) Mature (13) Missing
# % # % # % (3)
RM 8 53.33% 52 74.29% 13 100.00% 0
ERM 4 26.67% 35 50.00% 10 76.92% 0
SRM 2 13.33% 8 11.43% 2 15.38% 0
QA 9 60.00% 29 41.43% 7 53.85% 1
All of the above 0 0.00% 2 2.86% 0 0.00% 0
Other; no idea 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2
Table 4.14 – Actual Corresponding Term Used for Risk Management and QA Programme Implementation by Role of Participants
Statement
Administrator (45)
Faculty Member (33)
Both (23)
Missing (0)
# % # % # %
RM 35 77.8% 18 54.5% 20 87.0% 0
ERM 23 51.1% 11 33.3% 15 65.2% 0
SRM 7 15.6% 4 12.1% 1 4.3% 0
QA 17 37.8% 13 39.4% 16 69.6% 0
All of the above 0 0.0% 1 3.0% 1 4.3% 0
Other; no idea 1 2.2% 1 3.0% 0 0.0% 0
In terms of ERM adoption, the statistical figures in the above Tables 4.11 to 4.13 exhibit a good maturity level in the selected UAE HEIs, where good maturity levels suggest that the respective institutions sustain a clear definition of the institutional objectives and perform proper planning and resourcing, as well as effective monitoring and control of their risk management processes. The majority of the respondents in both public and private universities identified “ERM” as the term used in their institution to refer to the clearest QA function adopted across their campuses, whereby 51% of all the administrators, 33.3% of all the faculty members and 65.2% of all those who identified themselves as both administrators and faculty members selected ERM as the QA practice adopted in their respective institutions.
The results of descriptive statistical analysis of Table 4.12 show the difference in awareness levels between participants from public institutions and those from private institutions: “The actual Corresponding Term used for Risk Management and QA Programme Implementation by Institution Type”. However, since the researcher “cannot satisfy the assumptions underlying the use of parametric techniques” (Fraenkel and Wallen 2015, p. 229), the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to test the significance of the difference between the two variables of public and private universities with regards to ERM and QA awareness and perceptions.
Table 4.15 – Man-Whitney Test showing Significance of Difference between Public and Private Universities (1)
Group Mean Standard
Deviation N Test Test Statistics P-value University
type
Pub. = 4.80 Prvt. = 4.70
Pub. = 0.705 Prvt. = 0.919
Pub. = 47 Prvt. = 53
Mann-
Whitney U Z = - 0.025 Sig. = 0.958
Interpreting the results of Table 4.15, the researcher found that Mann-Whitney U is equal (=) - 0.025 and p-value is equal (=) 0.958 > α (α = 0.05). In this sense, the null hypothesis is acceptable where it is concluded that there is no significant difference between public and private institutions with regards to the level of their awareness of risk management and QA. This means that the faculty members and academic administrators of both types of institutions share the same level of awareness for risk management and QA. However, the small differences in the mean, average and standard deviation happened because of sample error and the insufficient total number of responses. Therefore, it can be concluded there is no significant difference between public and private institutions with regards to the level of awareness of the concept ascribed to risk management and QA functions.
In terms of ERM adoption, the survey items Q12 to Q17 use Likert scale rates of “Awareness” to specifically measure the perceptions of the participants towards effective ERM adoption in their academic institutions. The responses to these items indicate a clear level of awareness among the respondents towards all elements of risk management or ERM adoption at their respective institutions.
These elements include the existence of a clearly defined policy at the institution, as well as the appointment of a risk officer or committee to implement and evaluate risks, and finally the performance of periodic reviews of risk processes and the existence of a defined list of risks that can be resorted to by the management of each institution.
The majority of the responses (47.2%) were in favour of the “Very Aware” choice, which implicates an acceptable level of awareness evident among the majority of the survey respondents, as Table 4.15 and Figure 4.6 show:
Table 4.16 – Overall Awareness Measure of ERM Adoption Elements
Q
Extremely
Aware Very Aware Somewhat
Aware Not so Aware Not at All
Aware No idea
# % # % # % # % # % # %
Q12 27 26.7% 60 59.4% 10 9.9% 2 2.0% 1 1.0% 1 1.0%
Q13 18 18.0% 55 55.0% 0 0.0% 25 25.0% 2 2.0% 0 0.0%
Q14 19 18.8% 46 45.5% 26 25.7% 7 6.9% 2 2.0% 1 1.0%
Q15 25 25.0% 38 38.0% 30 30.0% 6 6.0% 1 1.0% 0 0.0%
Q16 24 24.0% 38 38.0% 24 24.0% 14 14.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Overall 113 22.5% 237 47.2% 90 17.9% 54 10.8% 6 1.2% 2 0.4%
Figure 4.6 – Overall Awareness Measure of ERM Adoption Elements
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Q 12 Q 13 Q 14 Q 15 Q 16
Count
Extremely Aware Very Aware Somewhat Aware Not so Aware Not at All Aware No idea
This analysis now focuses on the main reasons that justified and influenced the formation and adoption of a risk management framework policy in the way it has been implemented at the selected institutions.
These drivers, reasons and factors were identified by answering item Q36, where the respondents were asked about their reasons for adopting ERM. The researcher based these drivers on the reasons generally cited in the ERM literature, as well as previous research conducted in the field. The respondents were given the option to select more than one response, as evident in the results presented in Table 4.16.
Table 4.17 – Reasons for ERM Programme and Policy Adoption
Reasons Count Order (descending)
Official regulatory law 89 1. Official regulatory law Senior management decision 55 2. Senior management decision
Response to a failure 24 3. Part of the process of risk assessment
Strategic planning 28 4. Strategic planning
Part of the process of risk assessment 38 5. Senior decision-making
Senior decision-making 25 6. Adapting to economic environment Adapting to economic environment 25 7. Response to a failure
Hoping for a more effective academic process, and therefore success
21 8. Hoping for a more effective academic process, and therefore success
Others: CAA requirements 1 9. CAA requirements
Figure 4.7 – Reasons for ERM Programme and Policy Adoption
As shown in Tables 4.17, 4.18 and 4.19, in terms of ERM adoption, the impetus for starting an ERM programme and adopting a risk management policy mainly came as a direct response to and compliance
with official regulatory laws such as those mandated by the UAE’s MoE. The majority of responses representing 91.5% of the respondents in the public institutions and 84.9% of the respondents in the private institutions selected “Compliance with official regulatory laws” as the main driver for the adoption of their ERM programme. Almost half of the sample (45 administrators (95.6% of all administrators’ responses) and 33 faculty members (69.7% of all faculty members responses) argued that compliance with the MoE regulations, such as the CAA Standards, is the main reason for their institutions’ adoption of an ERM programme. The remainder of the reasons came to justify the adoption of an ERM programme as initiated by senior management decision such as by the president, the board or the chancellor (57.4% of the public institution responses; 50.9% of the private institution responses), part of the risk assessment process (46.8% of the public institution responses; 30.2% of the private institution responses), or as result of strategic planning (31.9% of the public institution responses; 22.6% of the private institution responses). One respondent cited an additional reason that can be classified under the
“Compliance with official regulatory laws”, with the CAA Standards being the driver. All these results match exactly the findings evidenced in the literature review, the document analysis and the interviews, which all agree that the local regulatory laws are the main drivers for the adoption of a specific type of ERM programme in UAE HEIs.
Tables 4.18 and 4.19 present additional supporting descriptive statistical data that show the reasons and impetus for starting an ERM programme at the selected institutions. The results are first presented depending on the variable of institution type, and second by relying on the role of participants’ factor.
Table 4.18 – Reasons for ERM Programme and Policy Adoption by Institution Type Statement Public (47) Private (53)
Missing
# % # %
Compliance with official regulatory law 43 91.5% 45 84.9% 1
Senior management decision 27 57.4% 27 50.9% 1
Response to a failure 13 27.7% 11 20.8% 0
Strategic planning 15 31.9% 12 22.6% 1
Part of the process of risk assessment 22 46.8% 16 30.2% 0
Senior decision-making 13 27.7% 12 22.6% 0
Adapting to economic environment 12 25.5% 13 24.5% 0
Hoping for a more effective academic
process, and therefore success 10 21.3% 11 20.8% 0
Others: CAA requirements 1 2.1% 0 0.0% 0
Table 4.19 – Reasons for ERM Programme and Policy Adoption by Role of Participants
Statement
Administrator (45)
Faculty Member
Both
(23) Missing (0)
# % # % # %
Compliance with official regulatory law 45 95.6% 33 69.7% 23 100.0% 0
Senior management decision 30 66.7% 13 39.4% 12 52.2% 0
Response to a failure 14 31.1% 4 12.1% 6 26.1% 0
Strategic planning 12 26.7% 12 36.4% 4 17.4% 0
Part of the process of risk assessment 21 46.7% 8 24.2% 9 39.1% 0
Senior decision-making 15 33.3% 5 15.2% 5 21.7% 0
Adapting to economic environment 13 28.9% 8 24.2% 4 17.4% 0 Hoping for a more effective academic
process, and therefore success
7 15.6% 6 18.2% 8 34.8% 0
Others: CAA requirements 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.3% 0
Summary:
Through the results of the survey data related to ERM adoption, and as evidenced by the statistical analysis, the researcher concluded that there is a consensus among the respondents that the main reasons behind the decision to adopt a clear risk management framework policy were the need to comply with the local official regulatory laws and as a response to senior management decision-making. The results also show that the perceptions obtained from the participants indicate a good level of maturity when the participants’ awareness level of ERM adoption was inquired into (47.2% of all respondents were “Very Aware” of the existence of ERM elements’ adoption at their institutions). The results show that, in the selected UAE public universities, ERM is the term used more commonly to refer to the major adopted QA processes (with 63.8% of all respondents in public universities opting for the form of ERM). On the other hand, ERM was found to be a less commonly used term in UAE private universities. Only 35.8%
of all respondents in the selected private universities agreed that ERM is the term used to identify the QA processes adopted at their institutions.
Additionally, the Mann-Whitney non-parametric test in Tables 4.15 and 4.32 show that there are no major differences in the ERM adoption awareness results when the demographic variables of institution type are taken into account. In other words, the level of awareness among respondents is almost equal whether they represent public or private universities, or whether the respondents are administrators or faculty members.
However, it is also concluded by the researcher that due to the unavailability of mandated unified government risk management policies, the selected UAE HEIs in this study opted to have their own risk management policies and processes. Therefore, by relying on the participants’ perceptions, no matter what the major impetus and drivers for ERM adoption are, the application and adoption methods used in each HEI are found to be unique and different. This finding is supported by the themes obtained from the subsequent document analysis and interview study. In other words, there is no consensus or uniformity
regarding the ERM and QA adoption or implementation methods across the selected academic institutions. As for the academic effectiveness and economic aspects of ERM adoption, it was surprising for the researcher that the respondents agreed that they would not have a big impact on the decision for ERM adoption, and therefore they are not major drivers in the implementation process. This is why these drivers came at the bottom of the ranking of the resulting ERM adoption reasons list.