4.7 Article

A systems approach to risk analysis validation for risk management

期刊

SAFETY SCIENCE
卷 99, 期 -, 页码 187-195

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.04.006

关键词

Risk analysis; Risk analysis validation; Trust; Risk management; Systems approach; Culture of analysis quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a logical structure to address the topic of this special issue: Risk Analysis Validation and Trust in Risk Management. We do that by presenting a systems approach that links all four of those concepts. The underlying logic: Validation should test how effectively a risk analysis supports actual, real-world implemented risk management. Our approach is based on a flowchart linking all of the elements from inputs through risk analysis, risk reporting and transparency, then how that reporting-transparency support the risk management decision making process and associated third party and stakeholder reviews (formal or informal), which in turn determine the trust and acceptance necessary for the real-world implementation of risk management actions. We take that flowchart and identify within it sixteen critical elements, then specify a validation test for each of those elements. Validation, then, consists of subjecting the risk analysis to those sixteen tests. Those tests, together, test the risk analysis for how effectively it supports implemented risk management. Another key feature: We divide the flowchart into Analysts' Domain, Users' Domain, and Analysis Community Domain. The Analysts' Domain is where the risk analysts work, then the Users' Domain stands between their work and implementation. The Analysis Community Domain is comprised of the communities of risk analysts and commissioners of risk analyses. Those two communities are where we would, as part of building our systems approach to risk analysis validation, build a Culture of Analysis Quality, where the sixteen validation tests would be enforced by both of those communities. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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