Preventing Failures in Risk Escalation in High-Stakes Organisations
Research on how recognised risks fail to trigger consistent action in discretionary organisational systems
Why recognised risks do not consistently trigger action
Work is increasingly shaped by digital systems, workflows, and distributed decision-making structures that influence how information is shared and acted upon.
In these environments, responsibility for action is often fragmented across roles, teams, and platforms. As a result, recognised risks may not be consistently escalated, acted on, or recorded in a way that supports accountability.
In many organisations, serious failures occur not because risks are undetected, but because recognised risks are not consistently escalated or acted upon.
Where decisions depend on discretion across teams, roles, and systems, similar risks can produce different responses. Fragmented responsibility and disconnected systems make consistent escalation difficult.
In high-risk settings such as policing, healthcare, and safeguarding, inconsistent responses to known risk can contribute to severe harm, organisational failure, and loss of public trust.
This research explores how these failures arise, and whether structuring how risk is classified, shared, and acted upon across systems can reduce variation in decision-making.
Prototype funding will support the development of an early system to test whether more structured decision routing can improve consistency, coordination, and auditability in practice.
Researcher and System Builder
Researcher and System Builder
Maribeth Olafioye Pronounced as: Mary-Beth O-la-phi-o-yay
Maribeth Olafioye is a Doctoral Researcher at Imperial College Business School and Founder of Change Management Library (CML).
Her research examines why, in organisational settings, risks that are already recognised do not always lead to consistent escalation or action. This work focuses on how discretionary judgement, fragmented responsibility, and disconnected systems can result in similar risks being handled differently across teams and contexts.
Her work is grounded in organisational development and decision-making, with a focus on how these inconsistencies contribute to serious adverse outcomes in high-stakes environments.
Alongside this research, she is developing a prototype system to test whether structuring how risk is classified, shared, and acted upon can reduce variation in decision responses and improve coordination and accountability.
Research Foundations
This research builds on work in organisational decision-making, discretion, and coordination in environments where judgement plays a central role.
Existing research shows that organisational routines, supervisory structures, and local context can lead to variation in how similar situations are interpreted and acted upon. It also highlights how coordination across teams and systems is often imperfect, particularly in time-sensitive or high-risk settings.
However, less attention has been given to what happens after risk is recognised — specifically, why known risks do not consistently trigger escalation or action across organisational and system boundaries.
This research focuses on that failure point, examining how discretion, fragmentation, and system design interact to shape whether recognised risks are acted upon, delayed, or lost.
Learn about the prototype
Decision Governance Prototype
Exploring system-level approaches to risk escalation
This research explores whether structuring how risk is identified, represented, and shared across organisational systems can improve consistency in how decisions are made and acted upon.
In many settings, responses to risk depend on individual judgement and local context. This project examines whether introducing a shared, structured representation of risk can support more consistent escalation and coordination across teams and systems.
In high-stakes organisational environments, serious failures often occur not because risks are undetected, but because recognised risks are not consistently escalated or acted upon.
Similar situations can lead to different decisions depending on who is involved, how information is interpreted, and how responsibility is distributed. This variation weakens accountability and increases the likelihood of harm.
Existing approaches rely heavily on individual judgement, local practices, and fragmented systems. While policies and guidelines exist, they are often applied inconsistently in practice.
Risk information may not be shared effectively across teams or systems, and escalation processes can be informal, delayed, or dependent on interpretation. As a result, recognised risks can be handled in different ways, or not acted upon at all.
Organisations are increasingly operating across multiple systems, teams, and decision environments, where responsibility for action is distributed and coordination is complex.
At the same time, there is growing pressure to demonstrate accountability, consistency, and transparency in how decisions are made, particularly in high-risk settings.
This creates a need to better understand how recognised risks are handled in practice, and whether system-level approaches can support more consistent and reliable decision-making.
Talks and Workshops
Talks and Workshops on Risk, Coordination, and Organisational Accountability
Alongside her academic research, Maribeth delivers talks and workshops focused on a critical organisational challenge: why recognised risks do not always lead to coordinated action.
Her sessions explore how fragmented systems, weak escalation processes, and poor transparency can result in inconsistent decisions across teams and services — sometimes with severe adverse outcomes.
Drawing on research in organisational decision-making, coordination, and system design, these talks focus on how organisations can strengthen shared visibility, clearer escalation, and more accountable responses in high-stakes environments.
Maribeth’s interest in this area is also deeply personal. Her work is shaped by the belief that failures in coordination and response are not abstract organisational problems, but can have real human consequences.
Example topics include:
- Why recognised risks do not consistently trigger action
- How poor coordination contributes to serious adverse outcomes
- Why shared transparency matters in high-stakes decision environments
- Escalation, accountability, and fragmented responsibility
- Designing systems that support more consistent organisational response
Sessions are suitable for senior leaders, policy teams, transformation programmes, healthcare, public sector, and innovation audiences.
Collaboration and Enquiries
For research collaboration, innovation partnerships, or invited talks
Complete the form to proceed with your booking and we’ll contact you.
Enquiries related to funded research, system evaluation, or scholarly collaboration are particularly welcome.