Skip to content

There is an exciting new opportunity to affect the field of risk analysis. The Society for Risk Analysis [SRA] Council, and the SRA Specialty Group for Foundations in Risk Analysis has constructed a new glossary aimed at developing an authoritative dictionary of terms used in risk analysis. Comments are currently being welcomed as the SRA Council is well aware that it may be difficult to agree on just one set of definitions. The description found on the SRA website is as follows:

The Council of the Society of Risk Analysis (SRA) has initiated a work on preparing a new SRA glossary.

A committee has been established to develop the glossary, and a draft version was presented to the SRA Council December 7, 2014. The response was very positive and a plan for how to proceed was approved. The objective is to have a final version ready for approval by the SRA Council in their June 2015 meeting. The committee welcomes  comments and suggestions to the draft glossary to further improve the definition texts and incorporate alternative views and perspectives; please send them to terje.aven@uis.no. Deadline 28 February 2015.

To access the draft glossary press here.

Terje Aven
Leader of the Committee

Please be sure to provide your comments by 28 February 2015.

In this post, Behailu Bekera, a 2nd-year PhD student in the SEED group discusses the role of robust decision making under deep uncertainties.  This post was inspired by a reading of Louis Anthony Cox's "Confronting Deep Uncertainties in Risk Analysis" in a recent issue of Risk Analysis.

There is no one good model that can be used to assess deep uncertainties. Hence our decisions about complex systems or decision contexts are typically made based on insufficient knowledge about the situation. Deep uncertainties are characterized by multiplicity of future events and an unknown future. So, being able to precisely anticipate undesired events in the future and conducting the necessary preparations would be an example of a decision context with deep uncertainty. In this article, Tony offers recognition to ideas from robust optimization, adaptive control and machine learning that seem promising for dealing with deep uncertainties in risk analysis.

Using multiple models and relevant data to improve decisions, average forecasting, resampling data that allows robust statistical inferences despite model uncertainty, adaptive sampling and modeling, and Bayesian model averaging for statistical are some of the tools that can assist in robust risk analysis involving deep uncertainties.

The robust risk analysis techniques shift the focus of risk analysis from addressing passive aspects of it, such as identifying likelihood events (disruptions) and their associated [estimated] consequences to more action-oriented questions.  Active questions such as how we should act now to effectively mitigate the occurrence or consequences of events with highly undesirable effects in the future.

Robust decision making, for instance, is used by developing countries to identify potential large-scale infrastructure development projects and investigate possible vulnerabilities that require profound attention of all stakeholders.  Additionally, adaptive risk management may be used to maintain reliable network structure to ensure service continuity despite failures. This sort of techniques can be considerably important in the areas of critical infrastructure protection and resilience.

Through these emerging methods, Dr. Cox, makes important suggestions for making robust decisions in the face of extreme uncertainty in spite of our incomplete or inadequate knowledge.  This will be an important paper for those looking to advance the science of robust decision-making and risk analysis.

Recently in a SEED group paper discussion, we re-visited the words of Stan Kaplan in his 1997 "The Words of Risk Analysis."  This is a transcript of a plenary lecture delivered to an Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis.  SEED Ph.D. student Vikram Rao presents some highlights from this article that I'm sure you'll enjoy as well.

I enjoyed the Kaplan article. I liked how it was written in an informal style which helped the article flow well and was easy to understand. It was a good introduction to risk analysis. It asked the three questions needed for a risk assessment – What can happen?, How likely is it?, and What are the consequences? These constitute the risk triplet. The diagrams were helpful, especially the dose response curve and the evidenced based approach.  And the diagrams that explained the decision making process with QRA were especially useful to get an overview of the whole process.

We need to recognize that risk assessments are going to be a bigger part of our decision making process considering the complexity of systems today. Systems such as aircraft, cars, and microprocessors have so many parts that the complexity is even bigger than before. Mitigating risks is a key to having successful complex systems. We need to be able to identify risks and have strategies for overcoming them. We can do this by eliciting expert opinions, doing simulations, and increasing our knowledge base.

We also see the rise in risks that have consequences on a national and global scale, such as global warming and climate change. By recognizing that effective risk mitigating strategies have vast importance today we can prepare ourselves well for the challenges of the future.

Today's plenary lunch included two interesting, high-level talks on several different dimensions of public health risk. While MacIntyre was focused on bioterrorism, Flahault was more wide ranging, with a general vision for changes in public health systems.

I have been fascinated on my international travels the last few weeks on the diversity of approaches to risk internationally. While you should by no means generalize from my remarks, it seems like there are a couple camps that focus on behavior modification and regulation, while others focus on the role of individual agents as key proponents in hazard exposures. In addition, engineers approach problems quite differently from basic scientists and they from social scientists and government agents. Of course there is much overlap. As a result, the foci in the technical presentations can vary quite widely.

I would say that engineers and basic scientists use scenario based approaches such as PRA, fault trees, and influence diagrams in their studies; more social science inclined professionals focus on the role of institutions in risk management and framing. Although we speak the same language at 30000 feet, the diversity in the details is truly fascinating.

My pressing question is How do we get folks involved in this earlier in life? How do we discuss the world of risk in a way that kids and young adults see the drama involved in finding out dangers and uncertainties germane to modern and global life?

The SEED group is actively involved in the Society for Risk Analysis, and we take this opportunity to list a few brief highlights from this year’s meeting:

  1. A paper by Dr. Francis and collaborators was presented in the preference elicitation and benefits assessment symposium.  The abstract is provided below.
  2. Dr. Francis began serving as the Chair of the Engineering and Infrastructure Specialty Group of the SRA.  EISG will be emphasizing linkages with other specialty groups, while also increasing our presence in the Risk Analysis journal.
  3. Expert elicitation and evidence synthesis were big topics this year, and Drs. Francis and Gray will be hoping to build on this interest within the SRA by applying innovative evidence synthesis techniques to chemical risk assessment problems.
  4. The plenary sessions this year were excellent, including a discussion of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill by Admiral Thad Allen, and a tribute to Carnegie Mellon’s Lester Lave.  Look out for class material from both of these knowledge bases to appear in Dr. Francis’s future courses