IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v137y2015icp1-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perspectives on risk and the unforeseen

Author

Listed:
  • Haugen, Stein
  • Vinnem, Jan Erik

Abstract

Black swans have been discussed lately. Some recent contributions to the understanding of black swans have been provided by Aven [1] and Aven and Krohn [3]. It is important to be aware of events which may come as complete surprise, which creates uncertainty in the risk assessment. This is consistent with the proposed revision of the definition of risk by Petroleum Safety Authority (PSA) [Norway]. But we should at the same time also try to look beyond this and see how we can use this concept to avoid serious accidents or at least reduce the consequences should accidents occur. In this paper we proposed to restrict the black swan concept to unknown unknowns. Cases illustrate how the wider definition may lead to misleading and unfortunate effects that will not lead to good risk management practices. The wider definitions proposed by Aven & Krohn are proposed to be counterproductive if seen in a risk management context.

Suggested Citation

  • Haugen, Stein & Vinnem, Jan Erik, 2015. "Perspectives on risk and the unforeseen," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 1-5.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:137:y:2015:i:c:p:1-5
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2014.12.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832014003160
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2014.12.009?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    2. Vinnem, Jan Erik, 2010. "Risk analysis and risk acceptance criteria in the planning processes of hazardous facilities—A case of an LNG plant in an urban area," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(6), pages 662-670.
    3. Aven, Terje & Krohn, Bodil S., 2014. "A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-10.
    4. Jan-Erik Vinnem, 2013. "Use of accident precursor event investigations in the understanding of major hazard risk potential in the Norwegian offshore industry," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(1), pages 66-79, February.
    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. Glette-Iversen, Ingrid & Aven, Terje, 2021. "On the meaning of and relationship between dragon-kings, black swans and related concepts," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    2. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    3. Martínez-Galán Fernández, Pablo & Guillén López, Antonio J. & Márquez, Adolfo Crespo & Gomez Fernández, Juan Fco. & Marcos, Jose Antonio, 2022. "Dynamic Risk Assessment for CBM-based adaptation of maintenance planning," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    4. Yulia Vertakova & Inga Vselenskaya & Vladimir Plotnikov, 2021. "Mergers and Acquisitions Risk Modeling," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-24, September.

    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. Charles Sabel & Gary Herrigel & Peer Hull Kristensen, 2018. "Regulation under uncertainty: The coevolution of industry and regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 371-394, September.
    2. Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås & Aven, Terje, 2019. "A semi-quantitative assessment process for improved use of the expected value of information measure in safety management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 494-502.
    3. 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.
    4. Khorsandi, Jahon & Aven, Terje, 2017. "Incorporating assumption deviation risk in quantitative risk assessments: A semi-quantitative approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 22-32.
    5. Aven, Terje, 2014. "On the meaning of the special-cause variation concept used in the quality discourse – And its link to unforeseen and surprising events in risk management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 81-86.
    6. Torbjørn Bjerga & Terje Aven, 2016. "Some perspectives on risk management: A security case study from the oil and gas industry," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 230(5), pages 512-520, October.
    7. Aven, Terje, 2015. "Implications of black swans to the foundations and practice of risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 83-91.
    8. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Turati, Pietro & Pedroni, Nicola & Zio, Enrico, 2017. "Simulation-based exploration of high-dimensional system models for identifying unexpected events," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 317-330.
    11. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Probabilities and background knowledge as a tool to reflect uncertainties in relation to intentional acts," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 229-234.
    12. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    13. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    14. Aven, Terje & Krohn, Bodil S., 2014. "A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-10.
    15. Inger Lise Johansen & Marvin Rausand, 2014. "Defining complexity for risk assessment of sociotechnical systems: A conceptual framework," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 228(3), pages 272-290, June.
    16. 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.
    17. Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås & Milazzo, Maria Francesca & Langdalen, Henrik & Dahl, Roy Endre & Bansal, Surbhi & Abrahamsen, Håkon Bjorheim, 2021. "On the use of the ‘Return Of Safety Investments’ (ROSI) measure for decision-making in the chemical processing industry," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    18. Paul Jiménez & Bianca Winkler & Anita Bregenzer, 2017. "Developing Sustainable Workplaces with Leadership: Feedback about Organizational Working Conditions to Support Leaders in Health-Promoting Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, October.
    19. Aven, Terje, 2017. "Improving risk characterisations in practical situations by highlighting knowledge aspects, with applications to risk matrices," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 42-48.
    20. Glette-Iversen, Ingrid & Aven, Terje, 2021. "On the meaning of and relationship between dragon-kings, black swans and related concepts," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).

    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:eee:reensy:v:137:y:2015:i:c:p:1-5. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    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.