Expressing and communicating uncertainty in relation to quantitative risk analysis (QRA)

• Autorzy: Flage R. , Aven T.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

A quantitative risk analysis (QRA) should provide a comprehensive, informative and balanced picture of risk, in order to support decisions. To achieve this, a proper treatment of uncertainty is a prerequisite. Most approaches to treatment of uncertainty in QRA seem to be based on the thinking that uncertainty relates to the calculated probabilities and expected values. This causes difficulties when it comes to communicating what the analysis results mean, and could easily lead to weakened conclusions if large uncertainties are involved. An alternative approach is to hold uncertainty as a main component of risk, and regard probabilities as epistemic-based expressions of uncertainty. In the paper the latter view is taken, and we describe what should be the main pillars of a risk description following this approach. We also indicate how this approach should relate to decision-making. An important issue addressed is how to communicate the shortcomings and limitations of probabilities and expected values. Sensitivity analysis plays a key role in this regard. An example is included to illustrate ideas and findings.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

quantitative risk analysis; QRA; uncertainty; sensitivity analysis; decision support

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Bezpieczeństwa i Niezawodności
• Czasopismo: Journal of Polish Safety and Reliability Association
• Rocznik: 2008
• Tom: Vol. 1
• Strony: 109--115
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 13 poz., rys., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Flage R.

• University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

autor

Aven T.

• University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

Bibliografia

• [1] Apostolakis, G. E. (2004). How useful is quantitative risk assessment? Risk Analysis. 24(3), 515-520.
• [2] Aven, T. (2008a). A semi-quantitative approach to risk analysis, as an alternative to QRAs. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 93(6), 790-797.
• [3] Aven, T. (2008b). Risk Analysis – Assessing Uncertainties beyond Expected Values and Probabilities. Wiley, New York.
• [4] Aven, T. (2003). Foundations of Risk Analysis – A Knowledge and Decision-oriented Perspective. Wiley, Chichester.
• [5] Bedford, T. & Cooke, R. (2001). Probabilistic Risk Analysis – Foundations and Methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• [6] Falck, A., Skramstad, E. & Berg, M. (2000). Use of QRA for decision support in the design of an offshore oil production installation. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 71, 179-192.
• [7] Helton, J.C. & Burmaster, D.E. (eds.) (1996a). Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 54(2-3), 91-262. Special issue on treatment of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty.
• [8] Helton, J.C. & Burmaster, D.E. (1996b). Guest editorial: treatment of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in performance assessments for complex systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 54, 91-94.
• [9] HSE (2001) Reducing risks, protecting people, HSE’s decision-making process (R2P2). HSE books, London. http://www.hse.gov.uk/dst/r2p2.pdf.
• [10] ISO (2002). Risk management vocabulary. ISO/IEC Guide 73.
• [11] Jonkman, S.N., van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M. & Vrijling, J.K. (2003). An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 99(1), 1-30.
• [12] Lindley, D.V. (2006). Understanding Uncertainty. Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.
• [13] Vinnem, J.E. (2007). Offshore Risk Assessment: Principles, Modelling and Applications of QRA Studies. 2nd ed. Springer, London.