1 / 18

Research Working Party Kickoff

Research Working Party Kickoff. Don Mango CAS VP Research & Development 2003 RCM Seminar. Agenda. CAS Big Audacious Goal (BAG) CAS Research Overhaul Working Party brainstorming. CAS BAG.

zlhna
Download Presentation

Research Working Party Kickoff

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Research Working Party Kickoff Don Mango CAS VP Research & Development 2003 RCM Seminar

  2. Agenda • CAS Big Audacious Goal (BAG) • CAS Research Overhaul • Working Party brainstorming

  3. CAS BAG • The CAS will be globally recognized as the pre-eminent resource in educating casualty actuaries and conducting research in casualty actuarial science. CAS members will be recognized as the leading experts in the evaluation of hazard risk and the integration of hazard risk with strategic, financial and operational risk.

  4. CAS BAG Implications • “… pre-eminent resource in … conducting research in casualty actuarial science.” • “… leading experts in the evaluation of hazard risk and the integration of hazard risk with strategic, financial and operational risk.”

  5. Problem Statements • No keepers of the state of the science • Need for survey papers, syllabus material • Research overload via Call Papers • Role/function of the PCAS unclear

  6. Proposed Solutions • De-emphasize Call Paper programs • Establish Working Paper and Model repository on the CAS Website • Evaluate CAS Publications • Develop a CAS Research Taxonomy • Establish Research Corners and Working Party sessions at the major seminars • Institute Working Parties

  7. Whither Call Papers? • Bottom-up, fast-track research source. • Stimulate communication, discussion and sharing. • Good in concept, in practice has been another story.

  8. Call Papers • Not a professional journal • Not peer reviewed. • Inclusive editorial policy. • Inconsistent review and prize standards. • Inconsistent appearance and structure of papers. • Contributes to members’ filtration and overload problems.

  9. Call Papers • Not generating discussion • Solitary practitioners produce, present • No context, follow-up, formal discussion • Not leading to systematic progress of the science • No referencing standards, context • No clear advancement of the science

  10. Call Papers  Working Papers • CPs are the equivalent of working papers within academia • Posted on websites and discussion forums • Works-in-progress, on their way to peer-reviewed journals • We can still have bottom-up idea generation, idea sharing, and discussion by establishing a Working Paper (and Model) repository on the CAS Website

  11. Working Paper Repository • Categorized by research area • Members can post and comment on posts (mini-reviews) • Items receiving a lot of activity can be the material for the Research Corners at the major seminars

  12. Publications Task Force • Impact and notoriety of PCAS outside the CAS is NIL • Forum is used / abused • Large bodies of work published without formal peer review • Considering some radical surgery • Maybe we join the NAAJ

  13. Research Taxonomy • Categorization scheme for our research • Should dramatically improve searches • Precursor to having effective referencing standards • Under development by the Research Chairs, with the assistance of Erin Clougherty and Mike Boa of the CAS Office

  14. Working Parties • Essentially a collective call paper task force • Collective = group effort, single group work product • Ideas come from the members attending major seminar • Seminar has presentation of prior year’s work, selection of next year’s topics

  15. Working Parties • Group effort forces discussion during the production of the product • Oversight by research committee • Can enforce editorial standards, referencing, ensure that current state of the science is documented, as well as context and scope of new research

  16. Working Parties • An easy to implement answer that helps on many fronts: • Solitary  Group • Bottom-up + Top-down • Consistency in format, referencing, etc. • Member involvement • Natural seminar cycle supports it

  17. Working Parties • Be prepared for some differences • Progress will be made • Ties will be broken • Oversight by R&D committees will be “managed consensus” • Stronger editorial hand

  18. Working Parties • Piloted here at 2003 RCM Seminar • Work product to be presented at 2004 RCM Seminar • Involves two proactive research committees (DRM, ERM) • Also to be introduced at CLRS (Sept 2003) and Ratemaking (March 2004)

More Related