IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v231y2017i3p295-305.html

Improving the foundation and practice of reliability engineering

Author

Listed:
  • Terje Aven

Abstract

Reliability engineering is today a well-established field, accounting for many scientific journals and conferences, educational programmes and courses, academic positions and societies. There are also many standards which guide the practice of reliability engineering, and every year a number of scientific papers are published which address reliability engineering issues. Yet the area faces many challenges, in particular when addressing systems characterised by large uncertainties, and accurate prediction models are not easily established. We see alternative analysis perspectives being advocated, with varying degrees of theoretical justification. This article argues that there is potential for improvements to be made in terms of both theoretical frameworks and the practice of reliability engineering to meet these challenges and guide reliability engineers and decision-makers. Examples relate to the understanding and treatment of uncertainties, and the use of ideas and methods from risk management. Clear recommendations are provided on how to obtain such improvements.

Suggested Citation

  • Terje Aven, 2017. "Improving the foundation and practice of reliability engineering," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(3), pages 295-305, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:231:y:2017:i:3:p:295-305
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X17699478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X17699478
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X17699478?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. Aven, T., 2011. "Interpretations of alternative uncertainty representations in a reliability and risk analysis context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 353-360.
    2. Zio, E., 2009. "Reliability engineering: Old problems and new challenges," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 125-141.
    3. Emanuele Borgonovo, 2006. "Measuring Uncertainty Importance: Investigation and Comparison of Alternative Approaches," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1349-1361, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Bo Bergman, 2009. "Conceptualistic Pragmatism: A framework for Bayesian analysis?," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 86-93.
    6. Saleh, J.H. & Marais, K., 2006. "Highlights from the early (and pre-) history of reliability engineering," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 249-256.
    7. Bjerga, Torbjørn & Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2014. "An illustration of the use of an approach for treating model uncertainties in risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 46-53.
    8. Borgonovo, E., 2007. "A new uncertainty importance measure," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(6), pages 771-784.
    9. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 2012. "On “Black Swans” and “Perfect Storms”: Risk Analysis and Management When Statistics Are Not Enough," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(11), pages 1823-1833, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Plischke, Elmar, 2016. "Sensitivity analysis: A review of recent advances," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(3), pages 869-887.
    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. Flage, Roger & Aven, Terje & Berner, Christine L., 2018. "A comparison between a probability bounds analysis and a subjective probability approach to express epistemic uncertainties in a risk assessment context – A simple illustrative example," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 1-10.

    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 & Rios Insua, David & Soyer, Refik & Zhu, Xiaoyan & Zio, Enrico, 2025. "Fifty years of reliability in operations research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 324(2), pages 361-381.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    6. Emanuele Borgonovo & Gordon B. Hazen & Elmar Plischke, 2016. "A Common Rationale for Global Sensitivity Measures and Their Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 1871-1895, October.
    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. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    9. Puppo, L. & Pedroni, N. & Maio, F. Di & Bersano, A. & Bertani, C. & Zio, E., 2021. "A Framework based on Finite Mixture Models and Adaptive Kriging for Characterizing Non-Smooth and Multimodal Failure Regions in a Nuclear Passive Safety System," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    10. Chen, Shi-Shun & Li, Xiao-Yang, 2025. "Comparison of global sensitivity analysis methods for a fire spread model with a segmented characteristic," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 304-318.
    11. Ibsen Chivatá Cárdenas & Saad S.H. Al‐Jibouri & Johannes I.M. Halman & Frits A. van Tol, 2014. "Modeling Risk‐Related Knowledge in Tunneling Projects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 323-339, February.
    12. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    13. 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).
    14. Zio, Enrico, 2016. "Challenges in the vulnerability and risk analysis of critical infrastructures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 137-150.
    15. Baraldi, Piero & Podofillini, Luca & Mkrtchyan, Lusine & Zio, Enrico & Dang, Vinh N., 2015. "Comparing the treatment of uncertainty in Bayesian networks and fuzzy expert systems used for a human reliability analysis application," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 176-193.
    16. Athanasios Zisos & Andreas Efstratiadis, 2025. "Implications of Spatial Reliability Within the Wind Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-20, September.
    17. Cui, Lijie & Lu, Zhenzhou & Wang, Pan & Wang, Weihu, 2014. "The ordering importance measure of random variable and its estimation," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 132-143.
    18. Ehre, Max & Papaioannou, Iason & Straub, Daniel, 2020. "Global sensitivity analysis in high dimensions with PLS-PCE," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    19. Soha Saad & Florence Ossart & Jean Bigeon & Etienne Sourdille & Harold Gance, 2021. "Global Sensitivity Analysis Applied to Train Traffic Rescheduling: A Comparative Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-29, October.
    20. Zdeněk Kala, 2020. "Sensitivity Analysis in Probabilistic Structural Design: A Comparison of Selected Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-19, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:risrel:v:231:y:2017:i:3:p:295-305. 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.