Submitted:
12 April 2024
Posted:
12 April 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Related Works
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. List of Risks and Threats of Bankruptcy
2.2.2. Methodologies and Models of Risks and Administrative Management
2.2.2.1. Canvas Model
2.2.2.2. Six Sigma Model
2.2.2.3. Kanban Model
2.2.2.4. Balanced Scorecard (BSC) Model or Balanced Scorecard
2.2.2.5. COSO Report
- Governance and Culture: Governance is responsible for managing institutional risks and establishing responsibilities. Culture refers to ethical values, desired behaviors and understanding of risk.
- Strategy and goal setting: business risk management, strategy and goals (strategic planning)
- Performance: Risks that may impact the achievement of the strategy and the business
- Review: When reviewing entity performance, an organization can consider how well enterprise risk management components are working over time
- Information, communication and reporting: It is a continuous process of obtaining and exchanging the necessary information, from internal and external sources [36].
2.2.2.6. Risk Matrix
2.2.3. Methodology
2.2.3.1. Conceptual Model
2.2.3.2. Security Prototype
2.2.3.3. Algorithm
2.2.3.4. Construction of the Formula
2.2.3.5. Simulations
3. Results
- Conceptual model to minimize risks
- Risk control prototype
- Algorithm to prevent the risks of bankruptcy and closure of small and medium-sized companies.
- Analysis and evaluation of risks.
3.1. Conceptual Model to Evaluate and Minimize Risks
3.2. Risks Prototype

3.3. Prototype Flowchart
- Phase 1.- Administrative and Financial Information: An administrative and financial diagnosis must be carried out to determine which aspects may be compromised if any negative event occurs that affects the survival of SMEs.
- Phase 2.- Vulnerabilities and threats: Once they are identified, the existing risks in SMEs can be determined. If the prototype determines that they do not exist, the process ends.
- Phase 3.- Risks measurement: To carry out this phase it is necessary to determine the value of the risks. Which is calculated by multiplying the probability of occurrence by the impact it can generate. Then they must be categorized, giving importance to those that can cause serious consequences that require inmediate attention.
- Phase 4.- Mitigate risks: Risks are analyzed to design mitigation strategies, which can be: Eliminate, minimize or share. If there are no mitigation strategies, the risks must be created and reanalyzed.
- Phase 5.- Risk Management: In this phase, strategies must be selected, described, executed and monitored based on the action plan.
- Phase 1: Administrative and Financial Information. - Financial and non-financial management indicators are detailed.
- Phase 2: Identification of threats and vulnerabilities. - Vulnerabilities and threats are described. If they do not exist, the process will be terminated.
- Phase 3: Risk identification and mitigation. - The risks are categorized and the value of each one is calculated.
- Phase 4: Risk Management. - With the selected strategies, an action plan must be created, which will be implemented and monitored.

| Scale | Assessment | Safe Level |
|---|---|---|
| 76-100 | Excellent rating | Excellent |
| 51-75 25-50 |
Optimal valuation Regular Assessment |
Optimun Regular |
| 0-24 | Poor valuation | Deficient |
| Values | Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Scenario 3 | Scenario 4 | Scenario 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Detection | 9 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 9 |
| Tolerance | 8 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 8 |
| Answer | 7 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 7 |
| Number of risks | 8 | 11 | 11 | 6 | 8 |
| Number of critical risks | 4 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 4 |
| Mitigation Capacity | 0,80 | 0,93 | 0,73 | 0,77 | 0,80 |
| Security Level (Po) | 0,63 | 0,78 | 0,37 | 0,65 | 0,63 |
| Safety percentage (s) | 62,50 | 77,92 | 37,19 | 65,22 | 62,50 |

3.4. Determination of the Formula to Detect the Probability of Closing as SME
3.5. Risk Analysis and Evaluation
4. Discussion
5. Future Work and Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
- R. Rodríguez-Mendoza and V. Aviles-Sotomayor, “Las PYMES en Ecuador. Un análisis necesario,” 593 Digit. Publ. CEIT, vol. 5–1, no. 5, pp. 191–200, 2020. [CrossRef]
- OECD/CAF, “Índice de Políticas PYME: América Latina y el Caribe 2019 Políticas para PYMEs competitivas en la Alianza del Pacífico y países participantes de América del Sur,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd.org/latin-america/Indice-Politicas-PYME-LAC-Mensajes-Principales.pdf.
- Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos, “Estadística de las empresas,” pp. 3–17, 2021.
- G. S. Marco Dini, MIPYMES en América Latina Un frágil desempeño y nuevos desafíos para las políticas de fomento. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/44148/1/S1800707_es.pdf.
- D. De La, O. Cordero, and R. Monge-González, “Factores que influyen en el desempeño de las PYMEs: una perspectiva cualitativa de los empresarios costarricenses Factors that influence the SMEs performance: a qualitative perspective of Costa Rican entrepreneurs,” Ran, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 2019, 2019.
- Maciejewska, “Risk factors for an audit process in the developed IT environment: The concept of research based on experiences from small audit practices in Poland,” in Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies, CISTI, 2014, pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
- D. I. Roque and A. Caicedo Carrero, “Detección de insolvencia financiera mediante el modelo Z-Altman en empresas colombianas no cotizantes durante el periodo 2016-2019,” Contab. y Negocios, vol. 17, no. 33, pp. 167–192, 2022. [CrossRef]
- M. H. Zahedi, A. R. Kashanaki, and E. Farahani, “Risk management framework in Agile software development methodology,” Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 4379–4387, 2023. [CrossRef]
- Khanova, O. Protalinsky, I. Bondareva, and Y. Khanova, “Situational management of production systems based on a balanced scorecard,” in 2020 International Conference Engineering and Telecommunication, En and T 2020, 2020, pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]
- T. B. Novikova, L. Z. Davletkireeva, and E. V. Romanova, “Balanced Scorecard Modeling: An Effective Management Tool,” in 2020 International Multi-Conference on Industrial Engineering and Modern Technologies, FarEastCon 2020, 2020, pp. 0–5. [CrossRef]
- M. del R. Fátima-Robles-Robles, M. de los Á. Romero-Espinoza, and N. G. Romero Vivar, “Efectos económicos y operativos preliminares del COVID-19 en las Mipymes de Sonora, México Preliminary economic and operational effects of COVID-19 on MSMEs in Sonora, Mexico,” Econ. Soc. y Territ., vol. XXI, no. 67, pp. 631–655, 2021.
- International Organization for Standardization, Norma Internacional ISO 31000. 2018, p. 25. [Online]. Available: https://auto-q-consulting.com.mx/Muestra24.IATF.2020/Norma.ISO.31000.2018.Espanol.pdf.
- Tran Duc Quynh; Tran thi Lan Phuong, “Improving the bankruptcy prediction by combining some classification models,” in 12th International Conference on Knowledge and Systems Engineering (KSE), 2020, pp. 263–268.
- Y. Yoshida, “Markov Decision Processes with Coherent Risk Measures: Risk Aversity in Asset Management,” in Proceedings - 2019 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management, CogSIMA 2019, 2019, no. i, pp. 147–151. [CrossRef]
- J. Zhang, “Structured Multi-Agent-Based Model for Bankruptcy Contagion With Cash Flow,” vol. 8, 2020. [CrossRef]
- D. S. Rahayu, “Parallel Implementation in Case-based Reasoning Bankruptcy Prediction System”.
- E. V. Telipenko and S. P. Sopova, “Software for bankruptcy risk assessment of the enterprise,” in RPC 2018 - Proceedings of the 3rd Russian-Pacific Conference on Computer Technology and Applications, 2018, pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
- R. Rooswati and N. Legowo, “Evaluation of IT Project Management Governance Using Cobit 5 Framework in Financing Company,” in Proceedings of 2018 International Conference on Information Management and Technology, ICIMTech 2018, 2018, no. September, pp. 81–85. [CrossRef]
- T. Y. T. Y. Lin, “Chinese wall security policies information flows in business cloud,” in Proceedings - 2015 IEEE International Conference on Big Data, IEEE Big Data 2015, 2015, pp. 1603–1607. [CrossRef]
- H. Fabric, “A Hyperledger-based P2P Energy Trading Scheme using Cloud Computing with Low Capabillity Devices,” 2019, pp. 2019–2021. [CrossRef]
- J. S. Suroso, A. Januanto, and A. Retnowardhani, “Risk Management of Debtor Information System at Bank XYZ Using OCTAVE Allegro Method,” in 2019 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICEEI), 2019, vol. 2019-July, pp. 261–265. [CrossRef]
- W. Altamirano Salazar, “La Contabilidad Creativa en el Gobierno Corporativo de las empresas,” Ciencias Adm., no. 12, p. 027, 2017. [CrossRef]
- Elizabeth and G. Santiago, “Riesgo de fraude y el desempeño financiero en las cooperativas de ahorro y crédito del Ecuador Fraud risk and financial perfomamnce in savings and credit cooperatives in Ecuador Resumen,” pp. 5206–5216, 2023.
- J. Wu, S. Member, K. Lin, D. A. N. Lin, and G. Student, “Financial Crimes in Web3-Empowered Metaverse : Taxonomy , Countermeasures ,” IEEE Open J. Comput. Soc., vol. 4, no. February, pp. 37–49, 2023. [CrossRef]
- J. Yao, J. Zhang, and L. Wang, “A financial statement fraud detection model based on hybrid data mining methods,” in 2018 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Big Data, ICAIBD 2018, 2018, pp. 57–61. [CrossRef]
- C. Tai, “Identifying Money Laundering Accounts,” 2019 Int. Conf. Syst. Sci. Eng., pp. 379–382, 2019.
- Osterwalder and Y. Pigneur, “Esfuerzan Por Desafiar Los Modelos Comerciales Pasados De Moda Y Escrito Por,” 2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.camarabaq.org.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Generacion-de-Modelos-de-Negocio-2010.en_.es_.pdf.
- E. G. Cuzco Simbaña, J. C. Erazo Álvarez, C. I. Narváez Zurita, and G. I. Andrade Mena, “El modelo Canvas como fundamento del plan de negocios para empresas de servicios de software de la ciudad de Cuenca,” Cienciamatria, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 781–804, 2019. [CrossRef]
- J. Malpartida, D. Olmos, S. Quiñones, M. J. Ledesma, G. Garcia Curo, and J. R. Diaz Dumont, “Six Sigma process improvement strategy applied to the textile,” Alpha Centauri, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 72–90, 2021.
- J. F. Ramírez Pérez, V. G. López Torres, S. A. Hernández Castillo, and M. Morejón Valdés, “Lean Six Sigma E Industria 4.0, Una Revisión Desde La Administración De Operaciones Para La Mejora Continua De Las Organizaciones,” UNESUM-Ciencias. Rev. Científica Multidiscip. ISSN 2602-8166, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 151–168, 2021. [CrossRef]
- L. Castellano Lendínez, “Kanban. Metodología para aumentar la eficiencia de los procesos. 3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme,” 3C Tecnol. Glosas innovación Apl. a la pyme, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 30–41, 2019.
- G. V. Carvajal Zambrano, A. C. Chávez López, M. L. Velásquez Vera, and D. Nogueira Rivera, “Balanced Scorecard: A look from its evolution,” Rev. Venez. Gerenc., vol. 27, no. 97, pp. 224–256, 2022. [CrossRef]
- Kaplan S.Robert.; and David. P. Nurton, BALANCED SCORECARD The balanced scorecard translating strategy into action [1996].pdf. 2000.
- M. Zamora, “El Desarrollo Organizacional Como Generador De Un Cambio Significativo En Las Organizaciones De La Sociedad Civil.,” Rev. Extrem. Ciencias Soc., vol. 10, pp. 87–109, 2018.
- H. Añaguaya, “Integración del Cuadro de Mando Integral (CMI) con el Modelo Canvas como Estrategia de Gestión Empresarial,” INF-FCPN-PGI Rev. PGI, vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 135–138, 2021, [sOnline]. Available: https://ojs.umsa.bo/ojs/index.php/inf_fcpn_pgi/article/view/70.
- Committee_of_Sponsoring_Organizations_of_Treadway_Commission, Enterprise Risk Management Integrating with Strategy and Performance, no. June. 2017.
- S. M. T. Toapanta et al., “Prototype to Mitigate the Risks, Vulnerabilities and Threats of Information to Ensure Data Integrity,” Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. J., vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 139–150, 2022. [CrossRef]
- L. Huang, Y. Shen, G. Zhang, and H. Luo, “Information system security risk assessment based on multidimensional cloud model and the entropy theory,” in ICEIEC 2015 - Proceedings of 2015 IEEE 5th International Conference on Electronics Information and Emergency Communication, 2015, pp. 11–15. [CrossRef]
- Alsalamah, “Security risk management in online system,” in Proceedings - 2017 5th International Conference on Applied Computing and Information Technology, 2017 4th International Conference on Computational Science/Intelligence and Applied Informatics and 2017 1st International Conference on Big Data, Cloud Compu, 2017, pp. 119–124. [CrossRef]

| Type | Ref. |
|---|---|
| Business Risk | |
| Investment Risk | |
| Quality Risk | |
| Operational Risk | |
| Technological Risk | |
| Financial Risk | [21] |
| Thread | Process | Ref. |
|---|---|---|
| Creative Accounting | Creative practices that serve to improve or worsen financial information according to the interests of the Stakeholders. | [22] |
| Fraud Risk | Incidence of fraud risks on financial performance. | [23] |
| Financial Crimes | Financial crimes in the Web3-Empowered Metaverse: taxonomy, countermeasures, and opportunities. | [24] |
| Data mining | Method of data extraction for financial purposes, through Data Mining.Detection of fraud in account statements to support the decisions of interested parties. | [25] |
| Money Laundering | Intelligent two-phase method based on data analysis and machine learning techniques to identify suspected money laundering accounts from transaction data. | [26] |
| Impact Level | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Mild Risk | 1 |
| Low Risk | 2 |
| Half Risk | 3 |
| High Risk | 4 |
| Extreme Risk | 5 |
| Occurrence | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Unlikely occurrence | 1 |
| Likely occurrence | 2 |
| Very likely occurrence | 3 |
| Highly probable occurrence | 4 |
| Extremely likely occurrence | 5 |
| Importance Level | Scale |
|---|---|
| Mild Risk | 1-5 |
| Low Risk | 6-10 |
| Normal Risk | 11-15 |
| High Risk | 16-20 |
| Criticism Risk | 20-25 |
| Risk | Probability of Ocurrence (PO) | Impact (I) | Risk Value (VR) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operational Risks (Market, customers, product, logistics.) | 4 | 5 | 20 |
| Financial Risk (Liquidity, solvency, profitability, debt) | 5 | 5 | 25 |
| Fraud Risk | 4 | 4 | 16 |
| Reputational Risk | 3 | 3 | 9 |
| Technological Risks | 4 | 3 | 12 |
| Scale | Assessment |
|---|---|
| 80-100 | Excellent rating |
| 50-70 20-40 |
Optimal valuation Regular Assessment |
| 0-10 | Poor valuation |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).