IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v235y2021i1p92-107.html

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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Terje Aven, 2010. "On the Need for Restricting the Probabilistic Analysis in Risk Assessments to Variability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 354-360, March.
    2. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2009. "On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, January.
    3. Terje Aven, 2010. "Reply to Discussants on “The Need for Restricting the Probabilistic Analysis in Risk Assessments to Variability”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 381-384, March.
    4. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    5. Aven, Terje, 2007. "A unified framework for risk and vulnerability analysis covering both safety and security," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(6), pages 745-754.
    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. Mir Md Ashfaque Sumon & Hyungju Kim & Børge Rokseth, 2025. "Hazard analysis of autonomous vessel operation during the interaction and execution between remote operation centre controller and onboard controllers," Journal of Shipping and Trade, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-30, 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. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2010. "Some reflections on uncertainty analysis and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 195-201.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.
    4. William A. Huber, 2010. "Ignorance Is Not Probability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 371-376, March.
    5. Berner, Christine Louise & Flage, Roger, 2017. "Creating risk management strategies based on uncertain assumptions and aspects from assumption-based planning," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 10-19.
    6. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    7. Tang, Yang & Liu, Qingyou & Jing, Jiajia & Yang, Yan & Zou, Zhengwei, 2017. "A framework for identification of maintenance significant items in reliability centered maintenance," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1295-1303.
    8. Goerlandt, Floris & Montewka, Jakub, 2015. "Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 115-134.
    9. Didier Dubois, 2010. "Representation, Propagation, and Decision Issues in Risk Analysis Under Incomplete Probabilistic Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 361-368, March.
    10. Terje Aven, 2014. "The substitution principle in chemical regulation: a constructive critique, by Ragnar Löfstedt," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(5), pages 569-571, May.
    11. Sarat Sivaprasad & Cameron A. MacKenzie, 2018. "The Hurwicz Decision Rule’s Relationship to Decision Making with the Triangle and Beta Distributions and Exponential Utility," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 139-153, September.
    12. D. Warner North, 2011. "Uncertainties, Precaution, and Science: Focus on the State of Knowledge and How It May Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1526-1529, October.
    13. Guikema, Seth D. & Aven, Terje, 2010. "Assessing risk from intelligent attacks: A perspective on approaches," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 478-483.
    14. Selvik, J.T. & Aven, T., 2011. "A framework for reliability and risk centered maintenance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 324-331.
    15. Yu, Xuchao & Liang, Wei & Zhang, Laibin & Reniers, Genserik & Lu, Linlin, 2018. "Risk assessment of the maintenance process for onshore oil and gas transmission pipelines under uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 50-67.
    16. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A critical discussion and practical recommendations on some issues relevant to the non-probabilistic treatment of uncertainty in engineering risk assessment," Post-Print hal-01652230, HAL.
    17. Szczygielski, Jan Jakub & Brzeszczyński, Janusz & Charteris, Ailie & Bwanya, Princess Rutendo, 2022. "The COVID-19 storm and the energy sector: The impact and role of uncertainty," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Jacob Taarup‐Esbensen, 2019. "Making Sense of Risk—A Sociological Perspective on the Management of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 749-760, April.
    19. Aven, Terje, 2010. "On how to define, understand and describe risk," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(6), pages 623-631.
    20. Aven, Terje, 2012. "On the link between risk and exposure," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 191-199.

    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: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.

    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.