IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v22y2002i2p319-334.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Finding and Fixing Systems Weaknesses: Probabilistic Methods and Applications of Engineering Risk Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell

Abstract

Methods of engineering risk analysis are based on a functional analysis of systems and on the probabilities (generally Bayesian) of the events and random variables that affect their performances. These methods allow identification of a system's failure modes, computation of its probability of failure or performance deterioration per time unit or operation, and of the contribution of each component to the probabilities and consequences of failures. The model has been extended to include the human decisions and actions that affect components' performances, and the management factors that affect behaviors and can thus be root causes of system failures. By computing the risk with and without proposed measures, one can then set priorities among different risk management options under resource constraints. In this article, I present briefly the engineering risk analysis method, then several illustrations of risk computations that can be used to identify a system's weaknesses and the most cost‐effective way to fix them. The first example concerns the heat shield of the space shuttle orbiter and shows the relative risk contribution of the tiles in different areas of the orbiter's surface. The second application is to patient risk in anesthesia and demonstrates how the engineering risk analysis method can be used in the medical domain to rank the benefits of risk mitigation measures, in that case, mostly organizational. The third application is a model of seismic risk analysis and mitigation, with application to the San Francisco Bay area for the assessment of the costs and benefits of different seismic provisions of building codes. In all three cases, some aspects of the results were not intuitively obvious. The probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) method allowed identifying system weaknesses and the most cost‐effective way to fix them.

Suggested Citation

  • Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 2002. "Finding and Fixing Systems Weaknesses: Probabilistic Methods and Applications of Engineering Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 319-334, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:22:y:2002:i:2:p:319-334
    DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.00025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00025
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/0272-4332.00025?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. Robert J. Budnitz & George Apostolakis & David M. Boore & Lloyd S. Cluff & Kevin J. Coppersmith & C. Allin Cornell & Peter A. Morris, 1998. "Use of Technical Expert Panels: Applications to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 463-469, August.
    2. B. John Garrick, 1984. "Recent Case Studies and Advancements in Probabilistic Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(4), pages 267-279, December.
    3. M. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell & Linda M. Lakats & Dean M. Murphy & David M. Gaba, 1997. "Anesthesia Patient Risk: A Quantitative Approach to Organizational Factors and Risk Management Options," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 511-523, August.
    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. Langdalen, Henrik & Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Abrahamsen, HÃ¥kon Bjorheim, 2020. "A New Framework To Idenitfy And Assess Hidden Assumptions In The Background Knowledge Of A Risk Assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    2. Wang, Wei & Cammi, Antonio & Di Maio, Francesco & Lorenzi, Stefano & Zio, Enrico, 2018. "A Monte Carlo-based exploration framework for identifying components vulnerable to cyber threats in nuclear power plants," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 24-37.
    3. Patrick L. Yorio & Dana R. Willmer & Joel M. Haight, 2014. "Interpreting MSHA Citations Through the Lens of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems: Investigating Their Impact on Mine Injuries and Illnesses 2003–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1538-1553, August.
    4. Francesco Di Maio & Samuele Baronchelli & Enrico Zio, 2015. "A Computational Framework for Prime Implicants Identification in Noncoherent Dynamic Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 142-156, January.
    5. Pietro Turati & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio, 2017. "An Adaptive Simulation Framework for the Exploration of Extreme and Unexpected Events in Dynamic Engineered Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 147-159, January.
    6. Lambert, James H. & Farrington, Mark W., 2007. "Cost–benefit functions for the allocation of security sensors for air contaminants," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(7), pages 930-946.
    7. James H. Lambert & Mark W. Farrington, 2006. "Risk‐Based Objectives for the Allocation of Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Air Emissions Sensors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1659-1674, December.
    8. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 2012. "On “Black Swans” and “Perfect Storms”: Risk Analysis and Management When Statistics Are Not Enough," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(11), pages 1823-1833, November.

    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. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 2002. "Risk and Uncertainty Analysis in Government Safety Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 633-646, June.
    2. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 2012. "On “Black Swans” and “Perfect Storms”: Risk Analysis and Management When Statistics Are Not Enough," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(11), pages 1823-1833, November.
    3. J. C. Helton & F. J. Davis, 2002. "Illustration of Sampling‐Based Methods for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 591-622, June.
    4. D. Warner North, 2010. "Probability Theory and Consistent Reasoning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 377-380, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Jason R. W. Merrick & J. Rene van Dorp & Jack Harrald & Thomas Mazzuchi & John E. Spahn & Martha Grabowski, 2000. "A systems approach to managing oil transportation risk in Prince William Sound," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(3), pages 128-142.
    7. Ine H. J. Van Der Fels‐Klerx & Louis H. J. Goossens & Helmut W. Saatkamp & Suzan H. S. Horst, 2002. "Elicitation of Quantitative Data from a Heterogeneous Expert Panel: Formal Process and Application in Animal Health," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 67-81, February.
    8. 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).
    9. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    10. Reza Kazemi & Ali Mosleh & Meghan Dierks, 2017. "A Hybrid Methodology for Modeling Risk of Adverse Events in Complex Health‐Care Settings," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 421-440, March.
    11. Jason R. W. Merrick & Martha Grabowski & Premnath Ayyalasomayajula & John R. Harrald, 2005. "Understanding Organizational Safety Using Value‐Focused Thinking," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(4), pages 1029-1041, August.
    12. Helton, Jon C. & Brooks, Dusty M. & Sallaberry, Cédric J., 2020. "Margins associated with loss of assured safety for systems with multiple weak links and strong links," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    13. George E. Apostolakis, 2004. "How Useful Is Quantitative Risk Assessment?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 515-520, June.
    14. Michael Greenberg, 2011. "Risk analysis and port security: some contextual observations and considerations," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 187(1), pages 121-136, July.
    15. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell & Louis Anthony Cox, 2014. "Improving Risk Management: From Lame Excuses to Principled Practice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1228-1239, July.
    16. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 2002. "Fusion of Intelligence Information: A Bayesian Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 445-454, June.
    17. Luca Zanetti & Daniele Chiffi & Lorenza Petrini, 2023. "Philosophical aspects of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA): a critical review," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 117(2), pages 1193-1212, June.
    18. M. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 1993. "Learning from the Piper Alpha Accident: A Postmortem Analysis of Technical and Organizational Factors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 215-232, April.
    19. M. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 1999. "Conditional Uncertainty Analysis and Implications for Decision Making: The Case of WIPP," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5), pages 995-1002, October.
    20. Tianyang Wang & James S. Dyer & John C. Butler, 2016. "Modeling Correlated Discrete Uncertainties in Event Trees with Copulas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 396-410, February.

    More about this item

    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:wly:riskan:v:22:y:2002:i:2:p:319-334. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.