System risk modelling and decision-making – Reflections and common pitfalls

IF 5.7 1区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
Niels Peter Høj , Inger Birgitte Kroon , Jannie Sønderkær Nielsen , Matthias Schubert
{"title":"System risk modelling and decision-making – Reflections and common pitfalls","authors":"Niels Peter Høj ,&nbsp;Inger Birgitte Kroon ,&nbsp;Jannie Sønderkær Nielsen ,&nbsp;Matthias Schubert","doi":"10.1016/j.strusafe.2024.102469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Since its foundation, the Joint Committee on Structural Safety (JCSS) has been engaged in the discussion of methods for determining the reliability of components, calibration of standards, as well as risk modelling of systems. In publications, it is regularly explained which methods have which advantages. In the literature, the drawbacks and pitfalls that challenge rational decisions and help to develop and find more appropriate methods for practice are often not documented.</div><div>Such problems can lead to decisions, which are not rational from a decision-theoretic point of view, some of which are worse than a random decision. Especially events, with a very small probability of occurrence hardly give any feedback possibilities from reality and evidence-based analysis of decisions is not possible. Careful selection of methods and knowledge/information of the assumptions is crucial to rational decisions.</div><div>This paper will discuss some of the identified pitfalls based on the discussions in the JCSS. It will span from aspects in the uncertainty quantification, uncertainty propagation, consequence assessment as well as approaches that are found and used in practice for decision-making (e.g. probability interpretations, risk aversion, risk matrices and FN diagrams). This paper can be seen as a documentation of outtakes from the discussions which led to the joint understanding and approach of the JCSS. The paper does not claim to be complete concerning all the possible pitfalls in risk assessments and system identification. But it does provide important reflections and indicates where the eyes must be kept open. Further, the paper points to a way of rational decision-making accounting for the uncertainties in information.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21978,"journal":{"name":"Structural Safety","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 102469"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Structural Safety","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473024000407","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since its foundation, the Joint Committee on Structural Safety (JCSS) has been engaged in the discussion of methods for determining the reliability of components, calibration of standards, as well as risk modelling of systems. In publications, it is regularly explained which methods have which advantages. In the literature, the drawbacks and pitfalls that challenge rational decisions and help to develop and find more appropriate methods for practice are often not documented.
Such problems can lead to decisions, which are not rational from a decision-theoretic point of view, some of which are worse than a random decision. Especially events, with a very small probability of occurrence hardly give any feedback possibilities from reality and evidence-based analysis of decisions is not possible. Careful selection of methods and knowledge/information of the assumptions is crucial to rational decisions.
This paper will discuss some of the identified pitfalls based on the discussions in the JCSS. It will span from aspects in the uncertainty quantification, uncertainty propagation, consequence assessment as well as approaches that are found and used in practice for decision-making (e.g. probability interpretations, risk aversion, risk matrices and FN diagrams). This paper can be seen as a documentation of outtakes from the discussions which led to the joint understanding and approach of the JCSS. The paper does not claim to be complete concerning all the possible pitfalls in risk assessments and system identification. But it does provide important reflections and indicates where the eyes must be kept open. Further, the paper points to a way of rational decision-making accounting for the uncertainties in information.
系统风险建模与决策--思考与常见误区
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Structural Safety
Structural Safety 工程技术-工程:土木
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
8.60%
发文量
67
审稿时长
53 days
期刊介绍: Structural Safety is an international journal devoted to integrated risk assessment for a wide range of constructed facilities such as buildings, bridges, earth structures, offshore facilities, dams, lifelines and nuclear structural systems. Its purpose is to foster communication about risk and reliability among technical disciplines involved in design and construction, and to enhance the use of risk management in the constructed environment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信