IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v235y2021i1p92-107.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utilization of risk priority number to systems-theoretic process analysis: A practical solution to manage a large number of unsafe control actions and loss scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • Hyungju Kim
  • Mary Ann Lundteigen
  • Andreas Hafver
  • Frank Børre Pedersen

Abstract

System-theoretic process analysis is a hazard identification method whose main assumption is that accidents can be caused by unsafe interactions of system components, as well as component failures. System-theoretic process analysis can cover a wider range of hazards compared with traditional hazard analysis methods, such as software flaws, human errors, component failures, and complex interactions of system components. Identifying more hazards is of course an important advantage of system-theoretic process analysis, but generating too many hazards may pose a practical challenge to stakeholders to utilize the results of system-theoretic process analysis. Some hazards or scenarios may be more critical with higher consequence, while others can be less critical with lower consequence. We therefore need to evaluate the analysis results to focus on more critical and important problems first, when we do not have enough time and resources. The main objective of this study has been to suggest an additional procedure to system-theoretic process analysis to ensure a systematic evaluation, screening, and prioritization of analysis results. The risk priority number approach was adopted to evaluate the criticality of the results of analyses. After investigating the strengths and limitations of traditional risk priority number approaches, three new risk priority number criteria along with four additional procedure steps were added to the system-theoretic process analysis for evaluation, screening, and prioritization of system-theoretic process analysis results. The proposed criteria and procedure have been demonstrated with a case study of a subsea gas compression system, and for this particular analysis, it was suggested that 38 of 130 unsafe control actions and 258 of 976 loss scenarios were significantly less critical and screened out, so that the resources could be prioritized to solve the remaining findings. Meanwhile, prioritization is still a rather new topic with system-theoretic process analysis, and in the end of the article, we have identified some ideas for further research in this area.

Suggested Citation

  • Hyungju Kim & Mary Ann Lundteigen & Andreas Hafver & Frank Børre Pedersen, 2021. "Utilization of risk priority number to systems-theoretic process analysis: A practical solution to manage a large number of unsafe control actions and loss scenarios," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 235(1), pages 92-107, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:235:y:2021:i:1:p:92-107
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X20939717
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X20939717
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X20939717?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
    ---><---

    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:235:y:2021:i:1:p:92-107. 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: 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.