IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v152y2016icp51-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Supplementing quantitative risk assessments with a stage addressing the risk understanding of the decision maker

Author

Listed:
  • Aven, Terje

Abstract

A quantitative probabilistic risk assessment produces a conditional risk description given the knowledge of the analysts (formulated to a large extent through assumptions). However, important aspects of the risk may be concealed in the background knowledge of the analyst and the assumptions. This paper discusses this issue, the main purpose being to present a two-stage risk assessment approach where the second stage addresses the risk understanding of the decision maker. This second-stage is to a large extent qualitative. The approach is novel with its separation between the analysts׳ conditional risk descriptions using probability judgments, and the decision maker׳s risk understanding. The approach aims at improving the use of risk assessment in practical decision making by ensuring that the results of the risk assessments are properly interpreted and the key aspects of risk, uncertainty and knowledge are brought to attention for the decision makers. Examples are used to illustrate the approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Aven, Terje, 2016. "Supplementing quantitative risk assessments with a stage addressing the risk understanding of the decision maker," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 51-57.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:152:y:2016:i:c:p:51-57
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2016.03.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832016000697
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2016.03.003?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. Aven, Terje, 2015. "On the allegations that small risks are treated out of proportion to their importance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 116-121.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2008. "A semi-quantitative approach to risk analysis, as an alternative to QRAs," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(6), pages 790-797.
    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. Terje Aven, 2017. "Improving the foundation and practice of reliability engineering," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(3), pages 295-305, June.
    2. Deyun Zhou & Yongchuan Tang & Wen Jiang, 2017. "An Improved Belief Entropy and Its Application in Decision-Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-15, March.
    3. Terje Aven, 2018. "An Emerging New Risk Analysis Science: Foundations and Implications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 876-888, May.
    4. Carpitella, Silvia & Certa, Antonella & Izquierdo, Joaquín & La Fata, Concetta Manuela, 2018. "A combined multi-criteria approach to support FMECA analyses: A real-world case," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 394-402.
    5. Abroon Qazi & Mecit Can Emre Simsekler & Steven Formaneck, 2023. "Supply chain risk network value at risk assessment using Bayesian belief networks and Monte Carlo simulation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 322(1), pages 241-272, March.
    6. Qazi, Abroon, 2023. "Exploring Global Competitiveness Index 4.0 through the lens of country risk," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(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. Neelke Doorn, 2015. "The Blind Spot in Risk Ethics: Managing Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 354-360, March.
    2. Kamel Karoui, 2016. "Security novel risk assessment framework based on reversible metrics: a case study of DDoS attacks on an E‐commerce web server," International Journal of Network Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 553-578, November.
    3. Roshanak Nateghi & Seth D. Guikema & Yue (Grace) Wu & C. Bayan Bruss, 2016. "Critical Assessment of the Foundations of Power Transmission and Distribution Reliability Metrics and Standards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 4-15, January.
    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. Tan, Samson & Moinuddin, Khalid, 2019. "Systematic review of human and organizational risks for probabilistic risk analysis in high-rise buildings," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 233-250.
    6. Berner, Christine Louise & Flage, Roger, 2017. "Creating risk management strategies based on uncertain assumptions and aspects from assumption-based planning," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 10-19.
    7. Askeland, Tore & Flage, Roger & Aven, Terje, 2017. "Moving beyond probabilities – Strength of knowledge characterisations applied to security," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 196-205.
    8. Johansson, Jonas & Hassel, Henrik & Zio, Enrico, 2013. "Reliability and vulnerability analyses of critical infrastructures: Comparing two approaches in the context of power systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 27-38.
    9. Shortridge, Julie & Aven, Terje & Guikema, Seth, 2017. "Risk assessment under deep uncertainty: A methodological comparison," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 12-23.
    10. Khan, Bushra & Khan, Faisal & Veitch, Brian & Yang, Ming, 2018. "An operational risk analysis tool to analyze marine transportation in Arctic waters," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 485-502.
    11. E B Abrahamsen & T Aven & R S Iversen, 2010. "Integrated framework for safety management and uncertainty management," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 224(2), pages 97-103, June.
    12. Aven, Terje, 2018. "Perspectives on the nexus between good risk communication and high scientific risk analysis quality," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 290-296.
    13. Berner, Christine Louise & Flage, Roger, 2016. "Comparing and integrating the NUSAP notational scheme with an uncertainty based risk perspective," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 185-194.
    14. Guikema, Seth D. & Aven, Terje, 2010. "Assessing risk from intelligent attacks: A perspective on approaches," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 478-483.
    15. Selvik, J.T. & Aven, T., 2011. "A framework for reliability and risk centered maintenance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 324-331.
    16. Su, Huai & Zio, Enrico & Zhang, Jinjun & Li, Xueyi, 2018. "A systematic framework of vulnerability analysis of a natural gas pipeline network," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 79-91.
    17. Julie Shortridge & Janey Smith Camp, 2019. "Addressing Climate Change as an Emerging Risk to Infrastructure Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 959-967, May.
    18. Beyza, Jesus & Gil, Pablo & Masera, Marcelo & Yusta, Jose M., 2020. "Security assessment of cross-border electricity interconnections," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Simeu-Abazi, Zineb & Di Mascolo, Maria & Knotek, Michal, 2010. "Fault diagnosis for discrete event systems: Modelling and verification," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(4), pages 369-378.

    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:152:y:2016:i:c:p:51-57. 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.