IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v228y2014i3p272-290.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defining complexity for risk assessment of sociotechnical systems: A conceptual framework

Author

Listed:
  • Inger Lise Johansen
  • Marvin Rausand

Abstract

This article aims to shed light on the meaning of complexity for risk assessment of sociotechnical systems. The point of departure is that complexity is related to uncertainty as an indication of confidence in risk assessment. Complexity science points to limitations in risk analysis that owe to a mismatch between the nature of sociotechnical systems and how we approach them in search of prediction and control. Complexity complements uncertainty in three ways: as a source of uncertainty, as an additional type of uncertainty concerning deviations from what is designed, planned or assumed, and as an overall indication of limitations in the analysis with respect to potential for surprise. A new framework is suggested to clarify and make the concept of practical value to risk assessment. The framework consists of a definition, a conceptual map, an ontological and epistemological position, and a set of indicators. Complexity is explained in the conjunction of an analyst, a system, and a chosen model and is conditioned on the state of knowledge and the assessment context. It is epistemic in the sense that it resides in the analyst’s understanding of the system and not in the system as such. A challenging implication is that complexity is relative in many respects, but this also provides opportunities for approaching it in risk assessment. The indicators can help to acknowledge, reduce, and describe complexity in pre-assessment, risk analysis, and risk evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Inger Lise Johansen & Marvin Rausand, 2014. "Defining complexity for risk assessment of sociotechnical systems: A conceptual framework," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 228(3), pages 272-290, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:228:y:2014:i:3:p:272-290
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X13517378
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X13517378
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X13517378?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. Treverton,Gregory F., 2003. "Reshaping National Intelligence for an Age of Information," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521533492.
    2. Gollier, Christian & Treich, Nicolas, 2003. "Decision-Making under Scientific Uncertainty: The Economics of the Precautionary Principle," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 77-103, August.
    3. Mohaghegh, Zahra & Kazemi, Reza & Mosleh, Ali, 2009. "Incorporating organizational factors into Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) of complex socio-technical systems: A hybrid technique formalization," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(5), pages 1000-1018.
    4. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    5. Aven, Terje, 2010. "On how to define, understand and describe risk," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(6), pages 623-631.
    6. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    7. Jinkyun Park, 2009. "The Complexity of Proceduralized Tasks," Springer Series in Reliability Engineering, Springer, number 978-1-84882-791-2, January.
    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. Bolbot, Victor & Theotokatos, Gerasimos & Bujorianu, Luminita Manuela & Boulougouris, Evangelos & Vassalos, Dracos, 2019. "Vulnerabilities and safety assurance methods in Cyber-Physical Systems: A comprehensive review," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 179-193.
    2. Bjerga, Torbjørn & Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2016. "Uncertainty treatment in risk analysis of complex systems: The cases of STAMP and FRAM," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 203-209.
    3. Xiuquan Deng & Zhu Lu & Xinmiao Yang & Qiuhong Zhao & Dehua Gao & Bing Bai, 2018. "Formation Mechanism and Coping Strategy of Public Emergency for Urban Sustainability: A Perspective of Risk Propagation in the Sociotechnical System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, February.
    4. Settanni, Ettore & Thenent, Nils Elias & Newnes, Linda B. & Parry, Glenn & Goh, Yee Mey, 2017. "Mapping a product-service-system delivering defence avionics availability," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 21-32.

    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. 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.
    2. Amro Nasr & Oskar Larsson Ivanov & Ivar Björnsson & Jonas Johansson & Dániel Honfi, 2021. "Towards a Conceptual Framework for Built Infrastructure Design in an Uncertain Climate: Challenges and Research Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    4. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    5. Goerlandt, Floris & Montewka, Jakub, 2015. "Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 115-134.
    6. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    7. Thomas Ying‐Jeh Chen & Valerie Nicole Washington & Terje Aven & Seth David Guikema, 2020. "Review and Evaluation of the J100‐10 Risk and Resilience Management Standard for Water and Wastewater Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 608-623, March.
    8. 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).
    9. Andrzej Magruk, 2020. "Uncertainties, Knowledge, and Futures in Foresight Studies — A Case of the Industry 4.0," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 14(4), pages 20-33.
    10. Torbjørn Bjerga & Terje Aven, 2016. "Some perspectives on risk management: A security case study from the oil and gas industry," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 230(5), pages 512-520, October.
    11. Bani-Mustafa, Tasneem & Flage, Roger & Vasseur, Dominique & Zeng, Zhiguo & Zio, Enrico, 2020. "An extended method for evaluating assumptions deviations in quantitative risk assessment and its application to external flooding risk assessment of a nuclear power plant," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    12. Sakurahara, Tatsuya & Schumock, Grant & Reihani, Seyed & Kee, Ernie & Mohaghegh, Zahra, 2019. "Simulation-Informed Probabilistic Methodology for Common Cause Failure Analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 84-99.
    13. Justin Pence & Zahra Mohaghegh, 2020. "A Discourse on the Incorporation of Organizational Factors into Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Key Questions and Categorical Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1183-1211, June.
    14. Henning Veland & Øystein Amundrud & Terje Aven, 2013. "Foundational issues in relation to national risk assessment methodologies," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(3), pages 348-358, June.
    15. Konstantinos Kazaras & Konstantinos Kirytopoulos, 2014. "Challenges for current quantitative risk assessment (QRA) models to describe explicitly the road tunnel safety level," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(8), pages 953-968, September.
    16. Montewka, Jakub & Goerlandt, Floris & Kujala, Pentti, 2014. "On a systematic perspective on risk for formal safety assessment (FSA)," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 77-85.
    17. Luo, Pengcheng & Hu, Yang, 2013. "System risk evolution analysis and risk critical event identification based on event sequence diagram," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 36-44.
    18. 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.
    19. Christoph A Thieme & Børge Rokseth & Ingrid B Utne, 2023. "Risk-informed control systems for improved operational performance and decision-making," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 237(2), pages 332-354, April.
    20. Liu, Peng & Lyu, Xi & Qiu, Yongping & He, Jiandong & Tong, Jiejuan & Zhao, Jun & Li, Zhizhong, 2017. "Identifying key performance shaping factors in digital main control rooms of nuclear power plants: A risk-based approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 264-275.

    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:228:y:2014:i:3:p:272-290. 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.