IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijbcrm/v5y2014i3p197-209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Safety oriented bubble diagrams vs. risk plots based on prediction intervals and strength-of-knowledge assessments. Which one to use as an alternative to risk matrices?

Author

Listed:
  • Eirik Bjorheim Abrahamsen
  • Øystein Amundrud
  • Terje Aven
  • Alireza M. Gelyani

Abstract

The use of risk matrices for visualising risks has been discussed in the literature. It is argued that risk matrices are not appropriate as the uncertainty is not properly taken into account. As an alternative to risk matrices, the use of bubble diagrams has been suggested. Risk plots based on prediction (uncertainty) intervals and strength-of-knowledge assessments have also been recommended. In this paper, we discuss which of these two alternatives to traditional risk matrices is considered most appropriate for visualising risks. We show that risk plots are more precise in reflecting important aspects of risks than bubble diagrams, while bubble diagrams are considered to give a better basis for ranking between risks. In this paper, a new visualisation tool closely related to the risk plots and the bubble diagrams is suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • Eirik Bjorheim Abrahamsen & Øystein Amundrud & Terje Aven & Alireza M. Gelyani, 2014. "Safety oriented bubble diagrams vs. risk plots based on prediction intervals and strength-of-knowledge assessments. Which one to use as an alternative to risk matrices?," International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(3), pages 197-209.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijbcrm:v:5:y:2014:i:3:p:197-209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=66159
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:ids:ijbcrm:v:5:y:2014:i:3:p:197-209. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=333 .

    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.