IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v227y2013i3p241-250.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On risk reduction principles in the context of maintenance optimisation modelling

Author

Listed:
  • Roger Flage

Abstract

This article addresses the relation between maintenance optimisation modelling and safety risk management. Most models for determining optimal maintenance strategies are based on a classical cost-benefit rationale, whereby all effects studied are transformed into monetary value and different concerns are balanced based on expected value calculations. If the failure of a system could have negative safety effects, there is a potential conflict between such an optimisation approach and the risk management principle saying that risk should be reduced to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP); at least this is so if an interpretation of ALARP applies where verifying ALARP includes cost-benefit assessments but also extend beyond these. The ALARP principle is also typically implemented in combination with risk acceptance criteria, which could imply a restriction on the set of permissible maintenance policies and hence lead to suboptimal maintenance scheduling from an optimisation modelling point of view. This article considers the implementation of the ALARP principle, in combination with risk acceptance criteria, in the context of maintenance optimisation, addressing two different interpretations of the ALARP principle. A numerical example is included to show how one of these would affect the determination of an optimal policy. Two key points discussed are that risk reduction can be achieved in other ways than by adjusting the decision parameter of a given maintenance optimisation model, and that according to one of the interpretations the philosophy and practice of the ALARP principle extends beyond mechanical cost-benefit optimisation.

Suggested Citation

  • Roger Flage, 2013. "On risk reduction principles in the context of maintenance optimisation modelling," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(3), pages 241-250, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:227:y:2013:i:3:p:241-250
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X13489954
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X13489954
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X13489954?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. George E. Apostolakis, 2004. "How Useful Is Quantitative Risk Assessment?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 515-520, June.
    2. Aven, Terje & Castro, I.T., 2009. "A delay-time model with safety constraint," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 261-267.
    3. Aven, Terje & Castro, I.T., 2008. "A minimal repair replacement model with two types of failure and a safety constraint," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 188(2), pages 506-515, July.
    4. Terje Aven, 2008. "Risk Analysis in Maintenance," Springer Series in Reliability Engineering, in: Complex System Maintenance Handbook, chapter 18, pages 437-458, Springer.
    5. Vatn, Jørn & Aven, Terje, 2010. "An approach to maintenance optimization where safety issues are important," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 58-63.
    6. Flage, Roger & Coit, David W. & Luxhøj, James T. & Aven, Terje, 2012. "Safety constraints applied to an adaptive Bayesian condition-based maintenance optimization model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 16-26.
    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. de Jonge, Bram & Scarf, Philip A., 2020. "A review on maintenance optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 805-824.
    2. Asadzadeh, S.M. & Azadeh, A., 2014. "An integrated systemic model for optimization of condition-based maintenance with human error," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 117-131.
    3. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    4. Zhang, Fengxia & Shen, Jingyuan & Liao, Haitao & Ma, Yizhong, 2021. "Optimal preventive maintenance policy for a system subject to two-phase imperfect inspections," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    5. Wang, Wenbin & Banjevic, Dragan & Pecht, Michael, 2010. "A multi-component and multi-failure mode inspection model based on the delay time concept," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(8), pages 912-920.
    6. Johnson, Caroline A. & Flage, Roger & Guikema, Seth D., 2021. "Feasibility study of PRA for critical infrastructure risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    7. Macchi, Marco & Garetti, Marco & Centrone, Domenico & Fumagalli, Luca & Piero Pavirani, Gian, 2012. "Maintenance management of railway infrastructures based on reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 71-83.
    8. Driessen, J.P.C. & Peng, H. & van Houtum, G.J., 2017. "Maintenance optimization under non-constant probabilities of imperfect inspections," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 115-123.
    9. Terje Aven, 2018. "An Emerging New Risk Analysis Science: Foundations and Implications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 876-888, May.
    10. Safaei, Fatemeh & Taghipour, Sharareh, 2024. "Integrated degradation-based burn-in and maintenance model for heterogeneous and highly reliable items," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    11. Yang, Li & Ma, Xiaobing & Peng, Rui & Zhai, Qingqing & Zhao, Yu, 2017. "A preventive maintenance policy based on dependent two-stage deterioration and external shocks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 201-211.
    12. Navarro, Jorge & Arriaza, Antonio & Suárez-Llorens, Alfonso, 2019. "Minimal repair of failed components in coherent systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(3), pages 951-964.
    13. George E. Apostolakis & Douglas M. Lemon, 2005. "A Screening Methodology for the Identification and Ranking of Infrastructure Vulnerabilities Due to Terrorism," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 361-376, April.
    14. Navarro, Jorge & Fernández-Martínez, Pedro, 2021. "Redundancy in systems with heterogeneous dependent components," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 290(2), pages 766-778.
    15. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    16. Senderov, Sergey M. & Smirnova, Elena M. & Vorobev, Sergey V., 2020. "Analysis of vulnerability of fuel supply systems in gas-consuming regions due to failure of critical gas industry facilities," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    17. Luca Allodi & Fabio Massacci, 2017. "Security Events and Vulnerability Data for Cybersecurity Risk Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1606-1627, August.
    18. Tidwell, Vincent C. & Lowry, Thomas S. & Binning, David & Graves, Jenny & Peplinski, William J. & Mitchell, Roger, 2019. "Framework for shared drinking water risk assessment," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 37-47.
    19. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    20. Qian Zhou & James H. Lambert & Christopher W. Karvetski & Jeffrey M. Keisler & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Flood Protection Diversification to Reduce Probabilities of Extreme Losses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(11), pages 1873-1887, November.

    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:227:y:2013:i:3:p:241-250. 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.