IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v227y2013i6p569-575.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Maximum group sizes for simultaneous testing in high potential risk scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • Frank PA Coolen

Abstract

When tests are performed in scenarios such as reliability demonstration, two extreme possibilities are to perform all required tests simultaneously or to test all units sequentially. From the perspective of time for testing, the former is typically preferred, but in high potential risk scenarios, for example in the case of possibly disastrous results if a tested unit fails, it is better to have the opportunity to stop testing after a failure occurs. An analogon appears in medical testing, with patients being the ‘units’, if new medication is to be tested to confirm its functionality while possibly severe (side) effects are not yet known. There is a wide range of test scenarios in between these two extremes, with groups of units being tested simultaneously. This article discusses such scenarios in a basic setting, assuming that the total number of required tests has been set, for example based on other criteria or legislation. A new criterion for guidance on suitable test group sizes is presented. Throughout, the aim is for high reliability, with testing stopped in case any unit fails, following which the units will not be approved. Any consecutive actions, such as improvement of the units or dismissing them, are not part of the main considerations in this article. While in practice the development of complex models and decision approaches may appear to be required, a straightforward argument is presented, which leads to results that can be widely applied and easily communicated.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank PA Coolen, 2013. "Maximum group sizes for simultaneous testing in high potential risk scenarios," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(6), pages 569-575, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:227:y:2013:i:6:p:569-575
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X13489483
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X13489483
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X13489483?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Houlding, B. & Coolen, F.P.A., 2012. "Nonparametric predictive utility inference," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 221(1), pages 222-230.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Donnacha Bolger & Brett Houlding, 2016. "Reliability updating in linear opinion pooling for multiple decision makers," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 230(3), pages 309-322, June.
    2. Frank PA Coolen & Tahani Coolen-Maturi & Abdullah H Al-nefaiee, 2014. "Nonparametric predictive inference for system reliability using the survival signature," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 228(5), pages 437-448, October.
    3. Liu, Hui-hui & Song, Yao-yao & Yang, Guo-liang, 2019. "Cross-efficiency evaluation in data envelopment analysis based on prospect theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(1), pages 364-375.
    4. Aboalkhair, Ahmad M. & Coolen, Frank P.A. & MacPhee, Iain M., 2013. "Nonparametric predictive reliability of series of voting systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 77-84.
    5. Brett Houlding & Frank P. A. Coolen & Donnacha Bolger, 2015. "A Conjugate Class of Utility Functions for Sequential Decision Problems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(9), pages 1611-1622, September.

    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:sae:risrel:v:227:y:2013:i:6:p:569-575. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.