Instructions for the Risk Assessment:
Please rate the severity (SEV) and probability (OCC) for each of the risk items based on your perspective.
In most cases you will not have complete information, but you are asked to give a rating based on your opinion or perception.
Feel free to skip items if you have no knowledge of that area or no strong opinion.
Perceived & Real Dishonesty		SEV1 Responses					OCC2 Responses						Risk Priority3
Perceived & Real Dishonesty		3	2	1	Avg		3	2	1	Avg		SEVavg  *OCCavg	Avg of ratings	Max Rating	% rated 6-9	comments
P & R Dishonesty in Coursework by Students - Exam level		12	14	0	2.46		10	10	7	2.11	*	5.20	5	9	63	High for take home.  Lack of opportunity.  I believe this is a bad problem, everywhere.  It does exist!!!								%
	Skipping classes															This has the potential to be very damaging but have
	Favoritism in grading																only heard of minimal problems reported from students.
	Discrimination against international students
	Professors being unavailable	3	2	1			3	2	1
P & R Dishonesty in Coursework by Students - Homework level		7	15	5	2.07		13	8	6	2.26	*	4.69	4.78	9	56	Low for in-class.  Plenty of opportunity.								%
P & R Dishonesty in Publications by Students		16	4	5	2.44		3	13	8	1.79	*	4.37	4.50	9	46	This certainly has the potential to be very damaging but do not have any idea what the level of occurance might be.								%
	Cheating on exams/homework/data															I believe this is a bad problem, everywhere.  It does exist!!!								%
	Student disinvestment, poor performance																							%
	Individual work becoming group work																							%
	Using upperclassmen in organizations for homework rather than getting help						3	2	1															%
P & R Dishonesty in Research by Students		16	6	5	2.41		2	12	9	1.70		4.08	4.57	6	43	This certainly has the potential to be very damaging but do not have any idea what the level of occurance might be.								%
	Taking other people's ideas and using them as their own/taking credit for projects																it is very severe							%
	Conflicts of interest for faculty and staff															Potentially very damaging but do not belive this to be a								%
	Misappropriation of funds						3	2	1								problem within ME or the OCRC.							%
P & R Dishonesty in Administrative Issues		7	10	3	2.20		0	9	10	1.47		3.24	3.05	6	15	Potentially very damaging but do not belive this to be a problem within ME or the OCRC.								%
	Taking other people's ideas and using them as their own/taking credit for projects																							%
P & R Dishonesty in Research by Faculty/staff		15	4	8	2.26		1	5	22	1.25	*	2.82	3.22	9	11	I don't know much about this situation, but I do believe								%
P & R Dishonesty in Publications by Faculty		15	1	4	2.55		0	3	16	1.16		2.95	2.90	6	10	Potentially very damaging but do not belive this to be a problem within ME or the OCRC.								%
	Copyright infringement																							%
	Co-authors not citing each other																							%
Conflicts of interest for faculty and staff		4	13	2	2.11		0	7	12	1.37		2.88	2.63	6	5									%
P & R Dishonesty in Coursework by Faculty		8	11	7	2.04		1	9	17	1.41	*	2.87	2.81	6	4	Should publish and maintain office hours.								%
	Misuse of OU vehicles
	Improper use of p-cards or personal cards
Safety		SEV1 Responses					OCC2 Responses						Risk Priority3
Safety Hazards and Accidents		3	2	1	Avg		3	2	1	Avg		SEVavg*OCCavg	Avg of ratings	Max Rating	% rated 6-9
Risk of Physical Injury to Students		15	3	1	2.74		3	10	6	1.84		5.04	5.30	9.00	60									%
Risk of Safety Regulatory Violations		6	10	2	2.22		4	10	4	2		4.44	4.42	9.00	37									%
***Risk of Senior Design - Safety		15	6	3	2.50		2	13	7	1.77		4.43	4.12	9.00	35									%
Risk of Chemical Injuries		12	5	1	2.61		2	5	11	1.50		3.92	4.16	9.00	32									%
Risk of Injury to other people in the facility		12	5	2	2.53		0	5	14	1.26		3.19	3.40	6.00	25									%
Risk of Equipment Damage		1	14	4	1.84		3	9	7	1.79		3.30	3.60	9.00	15									%
Risk of Building/Facilities Damage		4	5	10	1.68		0	3	16	1.16		1.95	2.11	6.00	5									%
	Research related injuries / Safety audits needed for each lab
	Lack of proper training (research facilities)
	Inadequate lab safety - procedures, PPE, training	Italics	indicates statements that
	Non compliance with OSHA, EPA rules/policies	support the general categories
	Lack of University safety guidelines
	Inadequate maintenance of tools & facilities
	Inadequate after-hours security of dangerous tools
	Safety guidelines for dept as compared to dept.
	Inadequate maintenance of inventory lists
	Less than minimum of two people using shop equipment
	Inadequate machine safety training
	Inadequate marking of tools / equipment for safety concerns
	Unsupervised work by students in machine shop
	Inadequate MSDS records
	Inadequate hazardous material control
Graduate Program		SEV1 Responses					OCC2 Responses						Risk Priority3
		3.00	2.00	1.00	Avg		3.00	2.00	1.00	Avg		SEVavg  *OCCavg	Avg of ratings	Max Rating	% rated 6-9
Limitations for Future Growth - Graduate Program		8.00	5.00	0.00	2.62		5.00	7.00	1.00	2.31		6.04	6.00	9.00	69	%								%
	Danger of technology export issues for non US or green card students (outsourcing)
	No outcomes and assessment of graduate program
	Unclear archival policy with regard to projects
	Failure of administration to understand that serious research requires serious investment of resources (leading to faculty/student stress)
	Unattractive facilities/poor maintenance
	Loss of PhD program / ME PhD program due to unapproved or delayed consideration
Inadequate Recruiting & Retention		3.00	2.00	1.00	Avg		3.00	2.00	1.00	Avg		SEVavg  *OCCavg
Inadequate R & R of Faculty		10.00	3.00	0.00	2.77		5.00	6.00	2.00	2.23		6.18	6.46	9.00	85	%								%
	Not attracting best grad students																							%
	Not reaching out to undergrads about possible research																							%
	Drop in grad student enrollments due to decreased quality Int. & US job prospects																							%
	Poor organization and lack of communication of grad program turns students away from grad program																							%
Inadequate R & R of New Students		5.00	6.00	2.00	2.23		5.00	5.00	3.00	2.15		4.80	4.69	9.00	54	%								%
	Low (uncompetitive) stipends for students																							%
	Loss of students due to other schools recruit (OU does not look attractive).																							%
	Lack of student involvement with program and peers																							%
Inadequate R & R of Current Students		8.00	4.00	1.00	2.54		6.00	5.00	2.00	2.31		5.86	5.77	9.00	54	%								%
	Not attracting best faculty
	Reputation for plagarism / Public Image
	Not attracting research faculty
Academic Quality		3.00	2.00	1.00	Avg		3.00	2.00	1.00	Avg		SEVavg  *OCCavg
Lack of Quality - Student's Research Work		5.00	8.00	0.00	2.38		4.00	6.00	3.00	2.08		4.95	5.00	9.00	46	%								%
	Inadequate editorial support for thesis/paper development																							%
	Poor Quality theses																							%
	Graduate students possessing poor english and/or writing skills																							%
	Excessive time commitments (Excessive or short)																							%
Inadequate Advising - Faculty constraints		5.00	8.00	0.00	2.38		6.00	3.00	4.00	2.15		5.14	5.31	9.00	46	%								%
	Poor research support for grants/proposals																							%
	Losing research projects if the perception is that research was compromised																							%
Lack of Quality Support for Research Work		4.00	7.00	2.00	2.15		1.00	9.00	3.00	1.85		3.98	4.15	6.00	38	%								%
	Lack of advising time for research / grad students
	Decrease in number of faculty
	The number of the faculty becomes too small
	Faculty leaving (including senior faculty, valuable contributors, …)
	Inadequate advisor responsibility identification
Communication & Relations		SEV1 Responses					OCC2 Responses						Risk Priority3
		3.00	2.00	1.00	Avg		3.00	2.00	1.00	Avg		SEVavg  *OCCavg	Avg of ratings	Max Rating	% rated 6-9
Internal Communications & Relations		4.00	4.00	2.00	2.20		5.00	4.00	1.00	2.40		5.28				%
Lack of guidelines leading to deficient reports, thesis/dissertation													5.60	9.00	60									%
	Lack of writing guidelines																							%
	Lack of departmental standards/guidelines for thesis content																							%
	Lack of departmental standards/guidelines for dissertation content																							%
	Lack of citation guidelines																							%
	Lack of research guidelines																							%
	Graduate students possessing poor english and/or writing skills																							%
Poor student advising will cause problems for students		7.00	7.00	3.00	2.24		5.00	11.00	1.00	2.24	*	5.00	5.18	9.00	53	%								%
	Lack of intermediate reporting system for cheating, etc.																							%
	Letting students continue to cheat by not recording the incidents																							%
	Copying information without references																							%
	Students unaware of similar research																							%
Poor student monitoring will lead to student misconduct		2.00	7.00	1.00	2.10		2.00	5.00	3.00	1.90		3.99	4.40	9.00	40	%								%
	Poor academic advising																							%
	Improper advising of undergrad students wrt curriculum and scheduling																							%
	Advising quality varies from student to student and professor to professor																							%
	Inappropriate use of group advising procedure																							%
	Lack of better knowledge of curriculum																							%
	Not updated and/or incorrect catalog information