IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i9p3207-d168438.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Scenario Generation Based on Importance Measure Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Xing Pan

    (School of Reliability & Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China)

  • Lunhu Hu

    (School of Reliability & Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China)

  • Ziling Xin

    (School of Reliability & Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China)

  • Shenghan Zhou

    (School of Reliability & Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China)

  • Yanmei Lin

    (School of Reliability & Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China)

  • Yong Wu

    (School of Reliability & Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China)

Abstract

A risk scenario is a combination of risk events that may result in system failure. Risk scenario analysis is an important part of system risk assessment and avoidance. In engineering activity-based systems, important risk scenarios are related to important events. Critical activities, meanwhile, mean risk events that may result in system failure. This article proposes these definitions of risk event and risk scenario based on the characteristics of risk in engineering activity-based systems. Under the proposed definitions, a risk scenario framework generated based on importance measure analysis is given, in which critical activities analysis, risk event identification, and risk scenario generation are the three main parts. Important risk events are identified according to activities’ uncertain importance measure and important risk scenarios are generated on the basis of a system’s critical activities analysis. In the risk scenario generation process based on importance analysis, the importance degrees of network activities are ranked to identify the subject of risk events, so that risk scenarios can be combined and generated by risk events and the importance of scenarios is analyzed. Critical activities are analyzed by Taguchi tolerance design, mathematical analysis, and Monte Carlo simulation methods. Then the degrees of uncertain importance measure of activities are solved by the three methods and these results are compared. The comparison results in the example show that the proposed method of uncertain importance measure is very effective for distinguishing the importance level of activities in systems. The calculation and simulation results also verify that the risk events composed of critical activities can generate risk scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Xing Pan & Lunhu Hu & Ziling Xin & Shenghan Zhou & Yanmei Lin & Yong Wu, 2018. "Risk Scenario Generation Based on Importance Measure Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-18, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:9:p:3207-:d:168438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/9/3207/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/9/3207/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dui, Hongyan & Si, Shubin & Yam, Richard C.M., 2017. "A cost-based integrated importance measure of system components for preventive maintenance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 98-104.
    2. Dan R. Anderson & Kenneth E. Anderson, 2009. "Sustainability Risk Management," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 12(1), pages 25-38, March.
    3. Stan Kaplan & Yacov Y. Haimes & B. John Garrick, 2001. "Fitting Hierarchical Holographic Modeling into the Theory of Scenario Structuring and a Resulting Refinement to the Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5), pages 807-807, October.
    4. Podofillini, L. & Zio, E. & Mercurio, D. & Dang, V.N., 2010. "Dynamic safety assessment: Scenario identification via a possibilistic clustering approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 534-549.
    5. 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.
    6. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Aliee, Hananeh & Glaß, Michael & Teich, Jürgen, 2016. "A new time-independent reliability importance measure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(2), pages 427-442.
    7. Zhang, Leigang & Lu, Zhenzhou & Cheng, Lei & Fan, Chongqing, 2014. "A new method for evaluating Borgonovo moment-independent importance measure with its application in an aircraft structure," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 163-175.
    8. Borgonovo, E., 2007. "A new uncertainty importance measure," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(6), pages 771-784.
    9. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Plischke, Elmar, 2016. "Sensitivity analysis: A review of recent advances," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(3), pages 869-887.
    10. Elmaghraby, Salah E., 2000. "On criticality and sensitivity in activity networks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 127(2), pages 220-238, December.
    11. Liu, Qiao & Homma, Toshimitsu, 2009. "A new computational method of a moment-independent uncertainty importance measure," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(7), pages 1205-1211.
    12. Yousra Tourki & Jeffrey Keisler & Igor Linkov, 2013. "Scenario analysis: a review of methods and applications for engineering and environmental systems," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 3-20, March.
    13. Elmaghraby, S. E. & Fathi, Y. & Taner, M. R., 1999. "On the sensitivity of project variability to activity mean duration," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 219-232, September.
    14. Li, Jinghui & Mosleh, Ali & Kang, Rui, 2011. "Likelihood ratio gradient estimation for dynamic reliability applications," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(12), pages 1667-1679.
    15. Vanhoucke, Mario, 2011. "On the dynamic use of project performance and schedule risk information during projecttracking," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 416-426, August.
    16. Andrea Saltelli, 2002. "Sensitivity Analysis for Importance Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 579-590, 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. Nima Pirhadi & Xiaowei Tang & Qing Yang & Fei Kang, 2018. "A New Equation to Evaluate Liquefaction Triggering Using the Response Surface Method and Parametric Sensitivity Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, December.

    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. Yun, Wanying & Lu, Zhenzhou & Feng, Kaixuan & Li, Luyi, 2019. "An elaborate algorithm for analyzing the Borgonovo moment-independent sensitivity by replacing the probability density function estimation with the probability estimation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 99-108.
    2. Isadora Antoniano‐Villalobos & Emanuele Borgonovo & Sumeda Siriwardena, 2018. "Which Parameters Are Important? Differential Importance Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2459-2477, November.
    3. Tatsuya Sakurahara & Seyed Reihani & Ernie Kee & Zahra Mohaghegh, 2020. "Global importance measure methodology for integrated probabilistic risk assessment," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(2), pages 377-396, April.
    4. Derennes, Pierre & Morio, Jérôme & Simatos, Florian, 2019. "A nonparametric importance sampling estimator for moment independent importance measures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 3-16.
    5. López-Benito, Alfredo & Bolado-Lavín, Ricardo, 2017. "A case study on global sensitivity analysis with dependent inputs: The natural gas transmission model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 11-21.
    6. Derennes, Pierre & Morio, Jérôme & Simatos, Florian, 2021. "Simultaneous estimation of complementary moment independent and reliability-oriented sensitivity measures," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 721-737.
    7. Makam, Vaishno Devi & Millossovich, Pietro & Tsanakas, Andreas, 2021. "Sensitivity analysis with χ2-divergences," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 372-383.
    8. Wenbin Ruan & Zhenzhou Lu & Pengfei Wei, 2013. "Estimation of conditional moment by moving least squares and its application for importance analysis," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(6), pages 641-650, December.
    9. Pesenti, Silvana M. & Millossovich, Pietro & Tsanakas, Andreas, 2019. "Reverse sensitivity testing: What does it take to break the model?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 654-670.
    10. Li, Haihe & Wang, Pan & Huang, Xiaoyu & Zhang, Zheng & Zhou, Changcong & Yue, Zhufeng, 2021. "Vine copula-based parametric sensitivity analysis of failure probability-based importance measure in the presence of multidimensional dependencies," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    11. Yun, Wanying & Lu, Zhenzhou & Jiang, Xian, 2019. "An efficient method for moment-independent global sensitivity analysis by dimensional reduction technique and principle of maximum entropy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 174-182.
    12. Martens, Annelies & Vanhoucke, Mario, 2019. "The impact of applying effort to reduce activity variability on the project time and cost performance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 442-453.
    13. Sinan Xiao & Zhenzhou Lu & Pan Wang, 2018. "Multivariate Global Sensitivity Analysis Based on Distance Components Decomposition," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2703-2721, December.
    14. Wei, Pengfei & Song, Jingwen & Lu, Zhenzhou & Yue, Zhufeng, 2016. "Time-dependent reliability sensitivity analysis of motion mechanisms," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 107-120.
    15. Yicheng Zhou & Zhenzhou Lu & Yan Shi & Kai Cheng, 2019. "A vine copula–based method for analyzing the moment-independent importance measure of the multivariate output," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 233(3), pages 338-354, June.
    16. Song, Jie & Martens, Annelies & Vanhoucke, Mario, 2021. "Using Schedule Risk Analysis with resource constraints for project control," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(3), pages 736-752.
    17. Wang, Zhenqiang & Jia, Gaofeng, 2020. "Augmented sample-based approach for efficient evaluation of risk sensitivity with respect to epistemic uncertainty in distribution parameters," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    18. Fernando Acebes & Javier Pajares & José M. González-Varona & Adolfo López-Paredes, 2021. "Project risk management from the bottom-up: Activity Risk Index," 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. 29(4), pages 1375-1396, December.
    19. Rabitti, Giovanni & Borgonovo, Emanuele, 2020. "Is mortality or interest rate the most important risk in annuity models? A comparison of sensitivity analysis methods," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 48-58.
    20. Xin Xu & Zhenzhou Lu & Xiaopeng Luo, 2014. "A Stable Approach Based on Asymptotic Space Integration for Moment‐Independent Uncertainty Importance Measure," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 235-251, February.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:9:p:3207-:d:168438. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.