IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v226y2012i3p346-358.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can we understand complex systems in terms of risk analysis?

Author

Listed:
  • J Vatn

Abstract

The concept of integrated operations (IO) introduces new ways of operations in the offshore petroleum industry. IO is often characterized by virtual decision arenas where many safety critical decisions are supported and made by distributed actors with different rationalities and responsibilities. This will challenge more traditional decision processes in several ways and it has been questioned whether the risk analysis framework can handle what some authors denote as emerging and escaping risks. Complexity is often considered as a source of such risks. In this paper risk is defined as uncertainty regarding occurrence and severity of undesired events. Next a variety of techniques for structuring and quantifying uncertainty are listed. To approach complexity it is proposed to identify a set of complexity characteristics in relation to the accidental scenarios to be undertaken in the analysis. This enables uncertainty due to complexity to be approached within the same framework as that used to cope with other sources of uncertainty. The important steps in such an integrated risk and complexity analysis are listed, and some of these steps are discussed in the light of examples relevant to IO.

Suggested Citation

  • J Vatn, 2012. "Can we understand complex systems in terms of risk analysis?," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 226(3), pages 346-358, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:226:y:2012:i:3:p:346-358
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X11405944
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X11405944
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X11405944?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. Mohaghegh, Zahra & Kazemi, Reza & Mosleh, Ali, 2009. "Incorporating organizational factors into Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) of complex socio-technical systems: A hybrid technique formalization," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(5), pages 1000-1018.
    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. Wu, Bing & Yip, Tsz Leung & Yan, Xinping & Guedes Soares, C., 2022. "Review of techniques and challenges of human and organizational factors analysis in maritime transportation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    2. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    3. Chiming Guo & Shiyu Gong & Lin Tan & Bo Guo, 2012. "Extended GTST‐MLD for Aerospace System Safety Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 1060-1071, June.
    4. Eichhorn Colombo, Konrad W., 2023. "Financial resilience analysis of floating production, storage and offloading plant operated in Norwegian Arctic region: Case study using inter-/transdisciplinary system dynamics modeling and simulatio," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 268(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Bui, Ha & Sakurahara, Tatsuya & Pence, Justin & Reihani, Seyed & Kee, Ernie & Mohaghegh, Zahra, 2019. "An algorithm for enhancing spatiotemporal resolution of probabilistic risk assessment to address emergent safety concerns in nuclear power plants," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 405-428.
    7. Kenneth Pettersen Gould, 2021. "Organizational Risk: “Muddling Through” 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 456-465, March.
    8. Schroer, Suzanne & Modarres, Mohammad, 2013. "An event classification schema for evaluating site risk in a multi-unit nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 40-51.
    9. Gh. A. Shirali & D. Kh. Afshin & K. Ahamadi Angali & Sh. Rostam Niakan Kalhori, 2022. "Modelling and assessing the influence of organizational culture norms on safety culture using Bayesian networks approach: the case of an oil industry," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 13(1), pages 304-317, February.
    10. Tsagkas, Vassilis & Nathanael, Dimitris & Marmaras, Nicolas, 2014. "A pragmatic mapping of factors behind deviating acts in aircraft maintenance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 106-114.
    11. Tao, Longlong & Wu, Jie & Ge, Daochuan & Chen, Liwei & Sun, Ming, 2022. "Risk-informed based comprehensive path-planning method for radioactive materials road transportation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    12. Mkrtchyan, L. & Podofillini, L. & Dang, V.N., 2015. "Bayesian belief networks for human reliability analysis: A review of applications and gaps," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1-16.
    13. Konstantinos Kazaras & Konstantinos Kirytopoulos, 2014. "Challenges for current quantitative risk assessment (QRA) models to describe explicitly the road tunnel safety level," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(8), pages 953-968, September.
    14. Skogdalen, Jon Espen & Vinnem, Jan Erik, 2011. "Quantitative risk analysis offshore—Human and organizational factors," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(4), pages 468-479.
    15. Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2011. "Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 64-74.
    16. Farcasiu, M. & Prisecaru, I., 2014. "MMOSA – A new approach of the human and organizational factor analysis in PSA," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 91-98.
    17. Pence, Justin & Abolhelm, Marzieh & Mohaghegh, Zahra & Reihani, Seyed & Ertem, Mehmet & Kee, Ernie, 2018. "Methodology to evaluate the monetary benefit of Probabilistic Risk Assessment by modeling the net value of Risk-Informed Applications at nuclear power plants," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 171-182.
    18. Justin Pence & Ian Miller & Tatsuya Sakurahara & James Whitacre & Seyed Reihani & Ernie Kee & Zahra Mohaghegh, 2019. "GIS‐Based Integration of Social Vulnerability and Level 3 Probabilistic Risk Assessment to Advance Emergency Preparedness, Planning, and Response for Severe Nuclear Power Plant Accidents," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1262-1280, June.
    19. Tao, Longlong & Chen, Liwei & Ge, Daochuan & Yao, Yuantao & Ruan, Fang & Wu, Jie & Yu, Jie, 2022. "An integrated probabilistic risk assessment methodology for maritime transportation of spent nuclear fuel based on event tree and hydrodynamic model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    20. Sakurahara, Tatsuya & O'Shea, Nicholas & Cheng, Wen-Chi & Zhang, Sai & Reihani, Seyed & Kee, Ernie & Mohaghegh, Zahra, 2019. "Integrating renewal process modeling with Probabilistic Physics-of-Failure: Application to Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) frequency estimations in nuclear power plants," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 1-1.

    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:226:y:2012:i:3:p:346-358. 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.