4.7 Article

Global risk assessment for development processes: from framework to simulation

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
卷 60, 期 24, 页码 7214-7238

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2021.2023912

关键词

Risk management; risk analysis; uncertainty; process modelling; simulation; agent-based systems

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper proposes a global framework and simulator for improving risk management methods. The focus is shifted from individual risk to risk interactions, and new strategies for expressing, assessing, and integrating risks are introduced. The solution can be applied to various manufacturing and development processes.
The dynamic and complex nature of development processes calls for improvements in risk management methods. To deal with the risks, the authors advocate for a paradigm shift. The focus is moving from individual risk to risk interactions. Standards suggest integrating methods to address the limitations imposed by existing approaches. As a result, new strategies are needed to express and assess risk connections. The paper proposes a global framework and its simulator for: (a) representing individual risk events and including them in a product development, (b) expressing risk interactions, (c) integrating risks hierarchically and (d) evaluating risks. The solution is based on distinction between individual risk events and global process and its risk behaviour. Risk behaviour is characterised on task level. Process behaviour enables the integration of task risk into the development process. Risk management is viewed as a part of the development process, with final risk assessed bottom-up from individual risk to process risk. Consequently, the main contribution is not only in taking risk interactions into account but also in contextualising risk assessment in relation to development processes. Simulation is conducted for hair dryer design. However, the solution is global and can be used for other manufacturing and development processes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据