Pub Date : 2004-10-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490896645
E. Abrahamsen, T. Aven, J. Vinnem, H. Wiencke
In this article we discuss a fundamental principle of decision-making under uncertainty; the use of expected values to support decision-making is the fundamental principle of decision-making under uncertainty. This principle is supported by the portfolio theory and is a ruling principle among economists. Also among some safety experts it is seen as a rational framework for decision-making. In this article we discuss the appropriateness of this thinking for the safety area. To what extent is the portfolio theory applicable for decision situations related to safety? The issue is important as it relates to the value of safety. Are investments in safety on the basis of application of principles such as robustness, precautionary, and risk aversion in conflict with the economic theory? Our starting point is the offshore oil and gas industry, but our discussion is to large extent general and could also be applied in other areas.
{"title":"Safety management and the use of expected values","authors":"E. Abrahamsen, T. Aven, J. Vinnem, H. Wiencke","doi":"10.1080/14664530490896645","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490896645","url":null,"abstract":"In this article we discuss a fundamental principle of decision-making under uncertainty; the use of expected values to support decision-making is the fundamental principle of decision-making under uncertainty. This principle is supported by the portfolio theory and is a ruling principle among economists. Also among some safety experts it is seen as a rational framework for decision-making. In this article we discuss the appropriateness of this thinking for the safety area. To what extent is the portfolio theory applicable for decision situations related to safety? The issue is important as it relates to the value of safety. Are investments in safety on the basis of application of principles such as robustness, precautionary, and risk aversion in conflict with the economic theory? Our starting point is the offshore oil and gas industry, but our discussion is to large extent general and could also be applied in other areas.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131516722","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-10-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490896537
L. Pagani, Curtis L. Smith, G. Apostolakis
Decisions by management during nuclear power plant operations may have safety-related and economic consequences, and may affect the relationship with external stakeholders such as regulatory authorities. Attributes such as worker exposure to radiation, potential radiation release, negative publicity, and regulatory intervention may conflict with concerns such as loss of income due to plant shutdown or reduced power. This article shows that the combination of probabilistic safety assessment and multi-attribute decision theory offers the potential for a structured decision-making methodology that could take into account risk-related aspects (plant and worker safety, for instance), as well as important factors like economics and regulatory requirements. The difficulties we encountered during the elicitation of utilities, and our solutions to those issues, are discussed. We demonstrate our decision analysis methodology using a case study in incident management—the decision making that follows events emanating...
{"title":"Making decisions for incident management in nuclear power plants using probabilistic safety assessment","authors":"L. Pagani, Curtis L. Smith, G. Apostolakis","doi":"10.1080/14664530490896537","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490896537","url":null,"abstract":"Decisions by management during nuclear power plant operations may have safety-related and economic consequences, and may affect the relationship with external stakeholders such as regulatory authorities. Attributes such as worker exposure to radiation, potential radiation release, negative publicity, and regulatory intervention may conflict with concerns such as loss of income due to plant shutdown or reduced power. This article shows that the combination of probabilistic safety assessment and multi-attribute decision theory offers the potential for a structured decision-making methodology that could take into account risk-related aspects (plant and worker safety, for instance), as well as important factors like economics and regulatory requirements. The difficulties we encountered during the elicitation of utilities, and our solutions to those issues, are discussed. We demonstrate our decision analysis methodology using a case study in incident management—the decision making that follows events emanating...","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121293661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-10-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490896663
O. Huber, Dominik Wicki
In choices between gambles, utilities and probabilities of consequences determine the decision. If in quasi-realistic risky tasks, decision makers can actively search for information, few search for probability information, and many search for risk-defusing operators (RDOs). RDOs are actions intended by the decision maker to be performed additionally to a specific alternative, with the intention to decrease the risk. For the presented experiment the distinction of two types of RDOs is relevant: A Prevention RDO prevents the occurrence of a negative event that causes a negative outcome. An Intervention RDO does not prevent the negative event but interrupts the causal mechanism between negative event and negative outcome. Forty Eight subjects made decisions in three quasi-realistic task. In two of three tasks, this preference can be attributed to the casual structure of RDO.
{"title":"Risk defusing in decision making: prevention or intervention?","authors":"O. Huber, Dominik Wicki","doi":"10.1080/14664530490896663","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490896663","url":null,"abstract":"In choices between gambles, utilities and probabilities of consequences determine the decision. If in quasi-realistic risky tasks, decision makers can actively search for information, few search for probability information, and many search for risk-defusing operators (RDOs). RDOs are actions intended by the decision maker to be performed additionally to a specific alternative, with the intention to decrease the risk. For the presented experiment the distinction of two types of RDOs is relevant: A Prevention RDO prevents the occurrence of a negative event that causes a negative outcome. An Intervention RDO does not prevent the negative event but interrupts the causal mechanism between negative event and negative outcome. Forty Eight subjects made decisions in three quasi-realistic task. In two of three tasks, this preference can be attributed to the casual structure of RDO.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"375 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122347464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-10-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490896690
J. Harvey, G. Erdos, H. Jackson, Selina Dennison
Safety culture is a complex issue; while there would seem to be a consensus about what it means in general terms, there is still no agreement concerning the actual number of its constituent factors, which range from 2 to 19 but almost always include management responsibility, job satisfaction, individual responsibility, leadership style and communication, commitment, risk awareness, and risk taking. Most research has concentrated on industry sectors where the salience of safety is high and it is possible that safety attitudes may differ in those industries where safety has a lower salience. There is also the possibility that to some extent safety culture factors are method-bound—the factors are as much a product of the items in the scale as they are of an underlying factor structure. This study uses two measures of safety culture and considers the factor structures for three industry groups—one in the nuclear industry, one in chemicals, and one in manufacturing. In the nuclear and manufacturing companies ...
{"title":"Is safety culture in differing organizations the same thing? a comparison of safety culture measures in three organizations","authors":"J. Harvey, G. Erdos, H. Jackson, Selina Dennison","doi":"10.1080/14664530490896690","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490896690","url":null,"abstract":"Safety culture is a complex issue; while there would seem to be a consensus about what it means in general terms, there is still no agreement concerning the actual number of its constituent factors, which range from 2 to 19 but almost always include management responsibility, job satisfaction, individual responsibility, leadership style and communication, commitment, risk awareness, and risk taking. Most research has concentrated on industry sectors where the salience of safety is high and it is possible that safety attitudes may differ in those industries where safety has a lower salience. There is also the possibility that to some extent safety culture factors are method-bound—the factors are as much a product of the items in the scale as they are of an underlying factor structure. This study uses two measures of safety culture and considers the factor structures for three industry groups—one in the nuclear industry, one in chemicals, and one in manufacturing. In the nuclear and manufacturing companies ...","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115123072","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-10-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490896555
A. Cebulla
Data from the British Household Panel Study are used to investigate the effect of changes in personal circumstances on employed panel members' assessment of the risk of unemployment. Adverse personal changes (‘risk events’) are shown to increase the likelihood of people, who felt safe from unemployment, to re-assess their risk and to become risk ‘pessimists’ one year later. Similarly, panel members who initially feared they might lose their jobs re-assessed their risk and became risk ‘optimists,’ if they experienced a number of (positive) risk events. After controlling for risk events, ‘error of judgment,’ which measures the accuracy of the initial risk assessment, was only independently significant for panel members who had judged themselves to be safe from unemployment, but had nevertheless lost their jobs. Risk re-assessments among panel members who had initially felt their jobs were insecure were significantly influenced by the time passed since re-employment, often exceeding the survey period. Overal...
{"title":"Risk events and learning from error: when are assessments of the risk of unemployment revised?","authors":"A. Cebulla","doi":"10.1080/14664530490896555","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490896555","url":null,"abstract":"Data from the British Household Panel Study are used to investigate the effect of changes in personal circumstances on employed panel members' assessment of the risk of unemployment. Adverse personal changes (‘risk events’) are shown to increase the likelihood of people, who felt safe from unemployment, to re-assess their risk and to become risk ‘pessimists’ one year later. Similarly, panel members who initially feared they might lose their jobs re-assessed their risk and became risk ‘optimists,’ if they experienced a number of (positive) risk events. After controlling for risk events, ‘error of judgment,’ which measures the accuracy of the initial risk assessment, was only independently significant for panel members who had judged themselves to be safe from unemployment, but had nevertheless lost their jobs. Risk re-assessments among panel members who had initially felt their jobs were insecure were significantly influenced by the time passed since re-employment, often exceeding the survey period. Overal...","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"142 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115477297","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-10-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490896609
J. Harvey, P. Norman, S. Joyce
Assessment of societal risk perception is a different process compared to traditional risk assessment based on probabilistic risk evaluation methods. Where uncertainty and subjectivity exist, a structured decision making method that can capture public risk perception would help designers to progress toward sustainable product design. In this article a multiple attribute decision making methodology is tested using two groups of experts to assess possible public perceptions of gasification plants. Issues associated with the methodology are discussed.
{"title":"Multi-attribute decision making and public perceptions of risk in relation to large scale environmental projects","authors":"J. Harvey, P. Norman, S. Joyce","doi":"10.1080/14664530490896609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490896609","url":null,"abstract":"Assessment of societal risk perception is a different process compared to traditional risk assessment based on probabilistic risk evaluation methods. Where uncertainty and subjectivity exist, a structured decision making method that can capture public risk perception would help designers to progress toward sustainable product design. In this article a multiple attribute decision making methodology is tested using two groups of experts to assess possible public perceptions of gasification plants. Issues associated with the methodology are discussed.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"129 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114210428","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-10-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490896573
Ilan Yaniv, M. Sagi
Recent advancement in genetics testing for late-onset diseases raises fundamental decision dilemmas. The first study surveyed people’s willingness to undergo predictive testing to find out about their own predisposition for certain incurable, late-onset diseases. The second study investigated the respondents’ willingness to be tested as a function of the base rate of the disease, test diagnosticity, and the availability of treatment for the disease. In addition we surveyed (in the first study) people’s willingness to disclose to others personal information about their genetic predisposition. The findings show that people often prefer not to know, as if they are choosing “protective ignorance”. Respondents’ verbal justifications of their choices were also analyzed. Respondents offered emotional, cognitive-instrumental, and strategic reasons for their preferences. The findings are compared with other issues in behavioral decision theory, including attitudes towards uncertainty and desire for control. The implications of the findings for policies and legislation on genetic tests are also considered.
{"title":"On not wanting to know and not wanting to inform others: choices regarding predictive genetic testing","authors":"Ilan Yaniv, M. Sagi","doi":"10.1080/14664530490896573","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490896573","url":null,"abstract":"Recent advancement in genetics testing for late-onset diseases raises fundamental decision dilemmas. The first study surveyed people’s willingness to undergo predictive testing to find out about their own predisposition for certain incurable, late-onset diseases. The second study investigated the respondents’ willingness to be tested as a function of the base rate of the disease, test diagnosticity, and the availability of treatment for the disease. In addition we surveyed (in the first study) people’s willingness to disclose to others personal information about their genetic predisposition. The findings show that people often prefer not to know, as if they are choosing “protective ignorance”. Respondents’ verbal justifications of their choices were also analyzed. Respondents offered emotional, cognitive-instrumental, and strategic reasons for their preferences. The findings are compared with other issues in behavioral decision theory, including attitudes towards uncertainty and desire for control. The implications of the findings for policies and legislation on genetic tests are also considered.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"159 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116307846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-10-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490896672
L. Utkin
Most models of aggregating expert judgments assume that there is available some information characterizing the experts. This information may be incorporated into the so-called hierarchical uncertainty models (second-order models). However, we often do not know anything about experts or it is difficult to evaluate their quality. In this case, beliefs to experts may be in the interval [0, 1] and the resulting assessments become to be non-informative. Moreover, attempts to assign some weights or beliefs to experts were not crowned with success because the behavior of experts may be distinguished in different circumstances. Therefore, this paper proposes to estimate expert judgm ents instead of experts themselves and studies how to assign interval probabilities of expert judgments by using a set of multinomial models.
{"title":"Probabilities of judgments provided by unknown experts by using the imprecise Dirichlet model","authors":"L. Utkin","doi":"10.1080/14664530490896672","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490896672","url":null,"abstract":"Most models of aggregating expert judgments assume that there is available some information characterizing the experts. This information may be incorporated into the so-called hierarchical uncertainty models (second-order models). However, we often do not know anything about experts or it is difficult to evaluate their quality. In this case, beliefs to experts may be in the interval [0, 1] and the resulting assessments become to be non-informative. Moreover, attempts to assign some weights or beliefs to experts were not crowned with success because the behavior of experts may be distinguished in different circumstances. Therefore, this paper proposes to estimate expert judgm ents instead of experts themselves and studies how to assign interval probabilities of expert judgments by using a set of multinomial models.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"134 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123217156","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-07-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490505594
Nathalie De Marcellis-Warin
Health care delivery today entails complicated technology and numerous interactions among health care practitioners. Adverse events can occur anywhere within the health care system. Although some accidents are caused by technical and mechanical problems, most are attributable to human error and health care system failures. In most industrial accidents, human and system errors are rooted in organizational factors; the same appears to hold true in the health care industry. Therefore, health care systems could greatly benefit from the lessons of safety and risk-management other industries provide. We present a model to analyze accidents, based upon traditional human factor methodologies used in the French Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) and adapted to Quebec's health care system.
{"title":"Risk-management in health care systems: Lessons from the nuclear industry","authors":"Nathalie De Marcellis-Warin","doi":"10.1080/14664530490505594","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490505594","url":null,"abstract":"Health care delivery today entails complicated technology and numerous interactions among health care practitioners. Adverse events can occur anywhere within the health care system. Although some accidents are caused by technical and mechanical problems, most are attributable to human error and health care system failures. In most industrial accidents, human and system errors are rooted in organizational factors; the same appears to hold true in the health care industry. Therefore, health care systems could greatly benefit from the lessons of safety and risk-management other industries provide. We present a model to analyze accidents, based upon traditional human factor methodologies used in the French Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) and adapted to Quebec's health care system.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117181980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-07-01DOI: 10.1080/14664530490505567
P. Hokstad, J. Vatn, T. Aven, M. S⊘rum
Risk analyses have been used in the Norwegian offshore petroleum industry for more than two decades. The analyses have been closely linked to the use of risk acceptance criteria (RAC). This paper gives a short review of the motivation and use of RAC in the management of risk at offshore installations. Focus is on the present situation and challenges in the Norwegian petroleum industry. The paper will discuss some recommended principles for arriving at risk acceptance. The relation between the acceptability of risk and the cost-benefit of risk reducing measures is also considered, mainly in the context of the ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) principle.
{"title":"Use of risk acceptance criteria in Norwegian offshore industry: Dilemmas and challenges","authors":"P. Hokstad, J. Vatn, T. Aven, M. S⊘rum","doi":"10.1080/14664530490505567","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664530490505567","url":null,"abstract":"Risk analyses have been used in the Norwegian offshore petroleum industry for more than two decades. The analyses have been closely linked to the use of risk acceptance criteria (RAC). This paper gives a short review of the motivation and use of RAC in the management of risk at offshore installations. Focus is on the present situation and challenges in the Norwegian petroleum industry. The paper will discuss some recommended principles for arriving at risk acceptance. The relation between the acceptability of risk and the cost-benefit of risk reducing measures is also considered, mainly in the context of the ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) principle.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123208737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：