I've written a blog post that dives into some of the results of my masters dissertation. The good folks at DaftBlogger published it on the weekend, and I've had some interesting feedback from some correspondents on the subject.
The first issue I'm looking at is why it is that the survey respondents saw an impact on matters of "marketing", such as "Providing a message of consistent performance and competence" and "Defining the value proposition" on the one hand, and "competitive advantage" questions on the other. These were matters such as "ensuring continuity of the value chain" and "making the trade-offs needed in the company's product/service mix". The former set of questions saw the respondents rated the degree of impact by the risk management function as "strongly positive" while the latter was a more equivocal "none" to "positive" rating for the most part.
Several questions emerge, ranging from "Was my survey question poorly worded" to matters of training. Perhaps, also, there's simply a dearth of connection: maybe it's just not possible for the risk management function to impact the latter areas to a great extent.