IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v167y2017icp42-48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving risk characterisations in practical situations by highlighting knowledge aspects, with applications to risk matrices

Author

Listed:
  • Aven, Terje

Abstract

Current practice for risk characterisations is based on methods reflecting threats, their consequences and probability, as well as concepts like risk factors and sources. The risk matrix is an example of such a method. The risk analysis field has demonstrated that there are many challenges related to this practice and there is a substantial potential for improvements in how the characterisations can be conducted. The key is to better reflect the knowledge aspect of risk. The purpose of the present paper is to present a set of practical methods that can be used for characterising risk in this setting in line with these findings of the risk analysis field. Extended risk matrix approaches are highlighted. These approaches include strength of knowledge judgements and rankings of risk factors and assumptions supporting the analysis. Special attention is given to potential surprises relative to the current knowledge. Simple examples are presented to illustrate the use of these methods and approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:167:y:2017:i:c:p:42-48
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2017.05.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832016306950
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2017.05.006?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. M. Granger Morgan & H. Keith Florig & Michael L. DeKay & Paul Fischbeck, 2000. "Categorizing Risks for Risk Ranking," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 49-58, February.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    3. Bjerga, Torbjørn & Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2014. "An illustration of the use of an approach for treating model uncertainties in risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 46-53.
    4. Laes, Erik & Meskens, Gaston & van der Sluijs, Jeroen P., 2011. "On the contribution of external cost calculations to energy system governance: The case of a potential large-scale nuclear accident," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5664-5673, September.
    5. Teng, Kuei-Yung & Thekdi, Shital A. & Lambert, James H., 2012. "Identification and evaluation of priorities in the business process of a risk or safety organization," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 74-86.
    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. Yacov Y. Haimes & Stan Kaplan & James H. Lambert, 2002. "Risk Filtering, Ranking, and Management Framework Using Hierarchical Holographic Modeling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 383-397, April.
    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. H. Orri Stefánsson, 2019. "Reply," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1227-1228, June.
    2. Thekdi, Shital A. & Aven, Terje, 2018. "A methodology to evaluate risk for supporting decisions involving alignment with organizational values," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 84-93.
    3. Svana Helen Björnsdottir & Pall Jensson & Saemundur E. Thorsteinsson & Ioannis M. Dokas & Robert J. de Boer, 2022. "Benchmarking ISO Risk Management Systems to Assess Efficacy and Help Identify Hidden Organizational Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-33, April.
    4. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    5. Scarf, P.A. & Cavalcante, C.A.V. & Lopes, R.S., 2019. "Delay-time modelling of a critical system subject to random inspections," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(3), pages 772-782.
    6. Seth Guikema, 2020. "Artificial Intelligence for Natural Hazards Risk Analysis: Potential, Challenges, and Research Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1117-1123, June.
    7. Anelli, Debora & Tajani, Francesco, 2023. "Spatial decision support systems for effective ex-ante risk evaluation: An innovative model for improving the real estate redevelopment processes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    8. Aven, Terje & Kristensen, Vidar, 2019. "How the distinction between general knowledge and specific knowledge can improve the foundation and practice of risk assessment and risk-informed decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    9. Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Abrahamsen, Håkon Bjorheim & Milazzo, Maria Francesca & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås, 2018. "Using the ALARP principle for safety management in the energy production sector of chemical industry," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 160-165.
    10. Abroon Qazi & Mecit Can Emre Simsekler & Steven Formaneck, 2023. "Supply chain risk network value at risk assessment using Bayesian belief networks and Monte Carlo simulation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 322(1), pages 241-272, March.
    11. Maria-Teresa Bosch-Badia & Joan Montllor-Serrats & Maria-Antonia Tarrazon-Rodon, 2020. "Risk Analysis through the Half-Normal Distribution," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, November.
    12. Anna Kosovac & Brian Davidson & Hector Malano, 2019. "Are We Objective? A Study into the Effectiveness of Risk Measurement in the Water Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, February.
    13. Qazi, Abroon, 2023. "Exploring Global Competitiveness Index 4.0 through the lens of country risk," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    14. Roger C. Jensen & Royce L. Bird & Blake W. Nichols, 2022. "Risk Assessment Matrices for Workplace Hazards: Design for Usability," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-23, February.
    15. Aven, Terje & Ylönen, Marja, 2019. "The strong power of standards in the safety and risk fields: A threat to proper developments of these fields?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 279-286.
    16. Mangirdas Morkunas & Gintaras Cernius & Gintare Giriuniene, 2019. "Assessing Business Risks of Natural Gas Trading Companies: Evidence from GET Baltic," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-14, July.

    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. 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.
    2. T. R. Wang & N. Pedroni & E. Zio & V. Mousseau, 2020. "Identification of Protective Actions to Reduce the Vulnerability of Safety‐Critical Systems to Malevolent Intentional Acts: An Optimization‐Based Decision‐Making Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 565-587, March.
    3. Berner, Christine Louise & Flage, Roger, 2016. "Comparing and integrating the NUSAP notational scheme with an uncertainty based risk perspective," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 185-194.
    4. Aven, Terje, 2017. "How some types of risk assessments can support resilience analysis and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 536-543.
    5. Bani-Mustafa, Tasneem & Flage, Roger & Vasseur, Dominique & Zeng, Zhiguo & Zio, Enrico, 2020. "An extended method for evaluating assumptions deviations in quantitative risk assessment and its application to external flooding risk assessment of a nuclear power plant," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    6. Gregory A. Lamm & Yacov Y. Haimes, 2002. "Assessing and managing risks to information assurance: A methodological approach," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(4), pages 286-314.
    7. Elizabeth B. Connelly & Lisa M. Colosi & Andres F. Clarens & James H. Lambert, 2015. "Risk Analysis of Biofuels Industry for Aviation with Scenario‐Based Expert Elicitation," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), pages 178-191, March.
    8. Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Dominique Vasseur & Francois Beaudouin, 2020. "A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(6), pages 748-763, December.
    9. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Barry M. Horowitz & Yacov Y. Haimes, 2003. "Risk‐based methodology for scenario tracking, intelligence gathering, and analysis for countering terrorism," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 152-169.
    12. Aven, Terje & Kristensen, Vidar, 2019. "How the distinction between general knowledge and specific knowledge can improve the foundation and practice of risk assessment and risk-informed decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    13. Bjerga, Torbjørn & Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2016. "Uncertainty treatment in risk analysis of complex systems: The cases of STAMP and FRAM," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 203-209.
    14. Avner Engel & Shalom Shachar, 2006. "Measuring and optimizing systems' quality costs and project duration," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 259-280, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Timothy L. McDaniels & Stephanie E. Chang & David Hawkins & Gerard Chew & Holly Longstaff, 2015. "Towards disaster-resilient cities: an approach for setting priorities in infrastructure mitigation efforts," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 252-263, June.
    17. Rogerson, Ellen C. & Lambert, James H., 2012. "Prioritizing risks via several expert perspectives with application to runway safety," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 22-34.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.

    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:167:y:2017:i:c:p:42-48. 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.