IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v191y2019ics0951832019303400.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How the distinction between general knowledge and specific knowledge can improve the foundation and practice of risk assessment and risk-informed decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • Aven, Terje
  • Kristensen, Vidar

Abstract

There is an increasing awareness and recognition of the importance of reflecting knowledge and lack of knowledge in relation to the understanding, assessment and management of risk. Substantial research work has been initiated to better link risk and knowledge. The present paper aims to contribute to this work by distinguishing between different types of knowledge: general knowledge and specific knowledge. For example, in relation to an offshore installation, the former captures knowledge about what could happen and why on offshore installations in general, whereas the latter covers more detailed knowledge related to the specific installation of interest and its operation. Risk management is viewed as the process of making sure that the general knowledge is sufficiently and efficiently used, including the identification of the specific knowledge needed, and ensuring that we have sufficient specific knowledge and control when assessing risk and making decisions. In the paper, we present a risk management framework built on these ideas and knowledge distinction. This framework clarifies interactions between the two knowledge bases, and how these bases can be used to improve the foundation and practice of risk assessment and management.

Suggested Citation

  • Aven, Terje & Kristensen, Vidar, 2019. "How the distinction between general knowledge and specific knowledge can improve the foundation and practice of risk assessment and risk-informed decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:191:y:2019:i:c:s0951832019303400
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106553
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832019303400
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106553?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. Terje Aven, 2018. "Reflections on the Use of Conceptual Research in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2415-2423, November.
    2. Laes, Erik & Meskens, Gaston & van der Sluijs, Jeroen P., 2011. "On the contribution of external cost calculations to energy system governance: The case of a potential large-scale nuclear accident," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5664-5673, September.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2017. "Improving risk characterisations in practical situations by highlighting knowledge aspects, with applications to risk matrices," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 42-48.
    4. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    5. Øystein Amundrud & Terje Aven & Roger Flage, 2017. "How the definition of security risk can be made compatible with safety definitions," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(3), pages 286-294, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Aven, Terje, 2011. "Selective critique of risk assessments with recommendations for improving methodology and practise," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(5), pages 509-514.
    8. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    9. 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.
    10. Aven, Terje, 2015. "Implications of black swans to the foundations and practice of risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 83-91.
    11. Terje Aven, 2019. "The Call for a Shift from Risk to Resilience: What Does it Mean?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1196-1203, June.
    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. Aven, Terje, 2019. "The cautionary principle in risk management: Foundation and practical use," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    2. Dariusz Szmel & Wiesław Zabłocki & Przemysław Ilczuk & Andrzej Kochan, 2019. "Method for Selecting the Safety Integrity Level for the Control-Command and Signaling Functions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Andrew Kirby, 2022. "The Right to Make Mistakes? The Limits to Adaptive Planning for Climate Change," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, June.
    4. Tao, Longlong & Wu, Jie & Ge, Daochuan & Chen, Liwei & Sun, Ming, 2022. "Risk-informed based comprehensive path-planning method for radioactive materials road transportation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    5. Medeiros, Cristina Pereira & da Silva, Lucas Borges Leal & Alencar, Marcelo Hazin & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2021. "A new method for managing multidimensional risks in Natural Gas Pipelines based on non-Expected Utility," 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. 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).
    2. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2019. "The cautionary principle in risk management: Foundation and practical use," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    4. Aven, Terje & Ylönen, Marja, 2019. "The strong power of standards in the safety and risk fields: A threat to proper developments of these fields?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 279-286.
    5. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    6. Young Jun Choi & Mi Sun Jeon, 2020. "How Business Interests and Government Inaction Led to the Humidifier Disinfectant Disaster in South Korea: Implications for Better Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 240-253, February.
    7. Aven, Terje, 2017. "How some types of risk assessments can support resilience analysis and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 536-543.
    8. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    9. Mangirdas Morkunas & Gintaras Cernius & Gintare Giriuniene, 2019. "Assessing Business Risks of Natural Gas Trading Companies: Evidence from GET Baltic," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-14, July.
    10. Marcin Nowak & Rafał Mierzwiak & Marcin Butlewski, 2020. "Occupational risk assessment with grey system theory," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 28(2), pages 717-732, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Aven, Terje & Ylönen, Marja, 2018. "A risk interpretation of sociotechnical safety perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 13-18.
    13. Borgonovo, E. & Cappelli, V. & Maccheroni, F. & Marinacci, M., 2018. "Risk analysis and decision theory: A bridge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 280-293.
    14. Anna Kosovac & Brian Davidson & Hector Malano, 2019. "Are We Objective? A Study into the Effectiveness of Risk Measurement in the Water Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Chao Fang & Piao Dong & Yi-Ping Fang & Enrico Zio, 2020. "Vulnerability analysis of critical infrastructure under disruptions: An application to China Railway High-speed," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(2), pages 235-245, April.
    17. Sujan, Mark A. & Habli, Ibrahim & Kelly, Tim P. & Gühnemann, Astrid & Pozzi, Simone & Johnson, Christopher W., 2017. "How can health care organisations make and justify decisions about risk reduction? Lessons from a cross-industry review and a health care stakeholder consensus development process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-11.
    18. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    19. Aven, Terje, 2017. "Improving risk characterisations in practical situations by highlighting knowledge aspects, with applications to risk matrices," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 42-48.
    20. Glette-Iversen, Ingrid & Aven, Terje, 2021. "On the meaning of and relationship between dragon-kings, black swans and related concepts," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:191:y:2019:i:c:s0951832019303400. 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.