IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v96y2011i10p1257-1262.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Whose uncertainty assessments (probability distributions) does a risk assessment report: the analysts' or the experts'?

Author

Listed:
  • Aven, Terje
  • Guikema, Seth

Abstract

It is often said that the aim of risk assessment is to faithfully represent and report the knowledge of some defined experts in the field studied. The analysts' job is to elicit this knowledge, synthesise it and report the results as integrated uncertainty assessments, for example, expressed through a set of probability distributions. Analysts' judgements beyond these tasks should not be incorporated in the uncertainty assessments (distributions). The purpose of the present paper is to discuss the rationale of this perspective. To conduct a risk assessment in practice the analysts need to make a number of judgements related to, for example, the choice of methods and models that to a large extent influence the results. And often the analysts are the real experts on many of the issues addressed in the assessments, in particular, when it comes to understanding how various phenomena and processes interact. Would it then not be more appropriate to fully acknowledge the role of the analysts as uncertainty assessors and probability assigners, and see the results of the risk assessments as their judgements based on input from the experts? The discussion is illustrated by two examples.

Suggested Citation

  • Aven, Terje & Guikema, Seth, 2011. "Whose uncertainty assessments (probability distributions) does a risk assessment report: the analysts' or the experts'?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(10), pages 1257-1262.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:96:y:2011:i:10:p:1257-1262
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2011.05.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832011000998
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2011.05.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dubois, Didier, 2006. "Possibility theory and statistical reasoning," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 47-69, November.
    2. James Berger & Elías Moreno & Luis Pericchi & M. Bayarri & José Bernardo & Juan Cano & Julián Horra & Jacinto Martín & David Ríos-Insúa & Bruno Betrò & A. Dasgupta & Paul Gustafson & Larry Wasserman &, 1994. "An overview of robust Bayesian analysis," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 3(1), pages 5-124, June.
    3. F. Owen Hoffman & Stan Kaplan, 1999. "Beyond the Domain of Direct Observation: How to Specify a Probability Distribution that Represents the “State of Knowledge” About Uncertain Inputs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 131-134, February.
    4. Keeney, Ralph L & Kulkarni, Ram B & Nair, Keshavan, 1979. "A risk analysis of an LNG terminal," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 191-205.
    5. Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2011. "Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 64-74.
    6. M. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell & Robin L. Dillon, 2006. "The Respective Roles of Risk and Decision Analyses in Decision Support," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 220-232, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thekdi, Shital A. & Aven, Terje, 2018. "A methodology to evaluate risk for supporting decisions involving alignment with organizational values," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 84-93.
    2. Milazzo, Maria Francesca & Aven, Terje, 2012. "An extended risk assessment approach for chemical plants applied to a study related to pipe ruptures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 183-192.
    3. Rachid Ouache & Gyan Chhipi-Shrestha & Kasun Hewage & Rehan Sadiq, 2021. "An integrated risk assessment and prediction framework for fire ignition sources in smart-green multi-unit residential buildings," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 12(6), pages 1262-1295, December.
    4. Maria Hänninen & Arsham Mazaheri & Pentti Kujala & Jakub Montewka & Pekka Laaksonen & Maija Salmiovirta & Mikko Klang, 2014. "Expert elicitation of a navigation service implementation effects on ship groundings and collisions in the Gulf of Finland," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 228(1), pages 19-28, February.
    5. Goerlandt, Floris & Islam, Samsul, 2021. "A Bayesian Network risk model for estimating coastal maritime transportation delays following an earthquake in British Columbia," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Milazzo, Maria Francesca & Aven, Terje, 2012. "An extended risk assessment approach for chemical plants applied to a study related to pipe ruptures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 183-192.
    2. Li, Yanfu & Zio, Enrico, 2012. "Uncertainty analysis of the adequacy assessment model of a distributed generation system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 235-244.
    3. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    4. Ripamonti, G. & Lonati, G. & Baraldi, P. & Cadini, F. & Zio, E., 2013. "Uncertainty propagation in a model for the estimation of the ground level concentration of dioxin/furans emitted from a waste gasification plant," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 98-105.
    5. Hu, Lunhu & Kang, Rui & Pan, Xing & Zuo, Dujun, 2020. "Risk assessment of uncertain random system—Level-1 and level-2 joint propagation of uncertainty and probability in fault tree analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    6. Yu, Xuchao & Liang, Wei & Zhang, Laibin & Reniers, Genserik & Lu, Linlin, 2018. "Risk assessment of the maintenance process for onshore oil and gas transmission pipelines under uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 50-67.
    7. Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2011. "Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 64-74.
    8. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi, 2014. "Concerns, Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1196-1207, July.
    9. Aven, T., 2011. "Interpretations of alternative uncertainty representations in a reliability and risk analysis context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 353-360.
    10. Aven, Terje, 2012. "The risk concept—historical and recent development trends," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 33-44.
    11. Zio, Enrico & Aven, Terje, 2011. "Uncertainties in smart grids behavior and modeling: What are the risks and vulnerabilities? How to analyze them?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6308-6320, October.
    12. Hansen, Lars Peter, 2013. "Uncertainty Outside and Inside Economic Models," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2013-7, Nobel Prize Committee.
    13. L. Robin Keller & Ali Abbas & Manel Baucells & Vicki M. Bier & David Budescu & John C. Butler & Philippe Delquié & Jason R. W. Merrick & Ahti Salo & George Wu, 2010. "From the Editors..," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 327-330, December.
      • L. Robin Keller & Manel Baucells & Kevin F. McCardle & Gregory S. Parnell & Ahti Salo, 2007. "From the Editors..," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 173-175, December.
      • L. Robin Keller & Manel Baucells & John C. Butler & Philippe Delquié & Jason R. W. Merrick & Gregory S. Parnell & Ahti Salo, 2008. "From the Editors..," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 173-176, December.
      • L. Robin Keller & Manel Baucells & John C. Butler & Philippe Delquié & Jason R. W. Merrick & Gregory S. Parnell & Ahti Salo, 2009. "From the Editors ..," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(4), pages 199-201, December.
    14. Francis, Royce & Bekera, Behailu, 2014. "A metric and frameworks for resilience analysis of engineered and infrastructure systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 90-103.
    15. Ho, Paul, 2023. "Global robust Bayesian analysis in large models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 608-642.
    16. Robin L. Dillon & Robert M. Liebe & Thomas Bestafka, 2009. "Risk‐Based Decision Making for Terrorism Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 321-335, March.
    17. Chamberlain, Gary, 2000. "Econometrics and decision theory," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 255-283, April.
    18. Bjerga, Torbjørn & Aven, Terje, 2015. "Adaptive risk management using new risk perspectives – an example from the oil and gas industry," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 75-82.
    19. Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås & Aven, Terje, 2019. "A semi-quantitative assessment process for improved use of the expected value of information measure in safety management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 494-502.
    20. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:96:y:2011:i:10:p:1257-1262. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.