IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2103.05440.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Problems with Risk Matrices Using Ordinal Scales

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Krisper

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss various problems in the usage and definition of risk matrices. We give an overview of the general process of risk assessment with risk matrices and ordinal scales. Furthermore, we explain the fallacies in each phase of this process and give hints on which decisions may lead to more problems than others and how to avoid them. Among those 24 discussed problems are ordinal scales, semi-quantitative arithmetics, range compression, risk inversion, ambiguity, and neglection of uncertainty. Finally, we make a case for avoiding risk matrices altogether and instead propose using fully quantitative risk assessment methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Krisper, 2021. "Problems with Risk Matrices Using Ordinal Scales," Papers 2103.05440, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2103.05440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.05440
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, 2012. "Confronting Deep Uncertainties in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1607-1629, October.
    2. Louis Anthony Cox, 2009. "Risk Analysis of Complex and Uncertain Systems," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-89014-2, December.
    3. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox & Djangir Babayev & William Huber, 2005. "Some Limitations of Qualitative Risk Rating Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 651-662, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Matteo Spada & Peter Burgherr, 2020. "Comparative Risk Assessment for Fossil Energy Chains Using Bayesian Model Averaging," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Louis Anthony (Tony)Cox, 2008. "What's Wrong with Risk Matrices?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 497-512, April.
    3. J. Park & T. P. Seager & P. S. C. Rao & M. Convertino & I. Linkov, 2013. "Integrating Risk and Resilience Approaches to Catastrophe Management in Engineering Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(3), pages 356-367, March.
    4. Roger C. Jensen & Haley Hansen, 2020. "Selecting Appropriate Words for Naming the Rows and Columns of Risk Assessment Matrices," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    6. Wentao Hu & Cuixia Chen & Yufeng Shi & Ze Chen, 2022. "A Tail Measure With Variable Risk Tolerance: Application in Dynamic Portfolio Insurance Strategy," Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 831-874, June.
    7. Amro Nasr & Oskar Larsson Ivanov & Ivar Björnsson & Jonas Johansson & Dániel Honfi, 2021. "Towards a Conceptual Framework for Built Infrastructure Design in an Uncertain Climate: Challenges and Research Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, October.
    8. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    9. Hua Li & George E. Apostolakis & Joseph Gifun & William VanSchalkwyk & Susan Leite & David Barber, 2009. "Ranking the Risks from Multiple Hazards in a Small Community," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 438-456, March.
    10. Scholz, Roland W. & Czichos, Reiner & Parycek, Peter & Lampoltshammer, Thomas J., 2020. "Organizational vulnerability of digital threats: A first validation of an assessment method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(2), pages 627-643.
    11. Jaume Belles‐Sampera & Montserrat Guillén & Miguel Santolino, 2014. "Beyond Value‐at‐Risk: GlueVaR Distortion Risk Measures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 121-134, January.
    12. Ram, Camelia, 2020. "Scenario presentation and scenario generation in multi-criteria assessments: An exploratory study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    13. Dimitrina S. Dimitrova & Vladimir K. Kaishev & Shouqi Zhao, 2015. "Modeling Finite‐Time Failure Probabilities in Risk Analysis Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1919-1939, October.
    14. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox Jr & Douglas A. Popken, 2010. "Assessing Potential Human Health Hazards and Benefits from Subtherapeutic Antibiotics in the United States: Tetracyclines as a Case Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 432-457, March.
    15. Tommi Ekholm & Erin Baker, 2022. "Multiple Beliefs, Dominance and Dynamic Consistency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 529-540, January.
    16. Andrew J. Keith & Darryl K. Ahner, 2021. "A survey of decision making and optimization under uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 300(2), pages 319-353, May.
    17. F. Brocal & C. González & D. Komljenovic & P. F. Katina & Miguel A. Sebastián, 2019. "Emerging Risk Management in Industry 4.0: An Approach to Improve Organizational and Human Performance in the Complex Systems," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-13, June.
    18. Adam M. Finkel & George Gray, 2018. "Taking the reins: how regulatory decision-makers can stop being hijacked by uncertainty," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 230-238, June.
    19. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2020. "Robust portfolio decision analysis: An application to the energy research and development portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(3), pages 1107-1120.
    20. Dustin C.S. Wagner & Kash Barker, 2014. "Statistical methods for modeling the risk of runway excursions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7), pages 885-901, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2103.05440. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.