IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v23y2020i3p297-312.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reproducibility investigation of elicitation techniques in risk assessment for hydraulic turbines

Author

Listed:
  • Mounia Berdai
  • Antoine Tahan
  • Martin Gagnon

Abstract

Certain elicitation techniques exert some control on expert opinions by leading them to a consensus or to a specific choice. In the absence of such guidelines, experts rely on their own knowledge to formulate opinions. This can result in large dispersions and affects the decision maker’s judgment. In this situation, we wonder what the relevant elicitation techniques are and how we can help experts to express their knowledge. From literature review, it is hard to decide if elicitation techniques are equivalent or not, which justifies the reproducibility analysis that we carry out in this paper. In this study, multiple experts have been involved in order to predict the defect size in hydraulic turbines, according to four proposed elicitation techniques. The comparison between these techniques was performed based on a suggested algorithm using the area metric concept. Our Findings show that elicitation techniques with ‘support’ tend to limit variations between experts and might be suitable only when prior knowledge on the expected elicited variable is available. Otherwise, we can end up with a distorted opinion of the elicited variable and an erroneous risk assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Mounia Berdai & Antoine Tahan & Martin Gagnon, 2020. "Reproducibility investigation of elicitation techniques in risk assessment for hydraulic turbines," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 297-312, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:23:y:2020:i:3:p:297-312
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2019.1569093
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2019.1569093
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2019.1569093?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
    ---><---

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

    More about this item

    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:taf:jriskr:v:23:y:2020:i:3:p:297-312. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.