1 / 23

Redefining Risk: Embracing Uncertainty Over Probability

Explore why uncertainty should replace probability in defining risk, discuss ontologies and methods, and analyze real-life risk scenarios like the Kjerag bolt incident in 2011. Delve into subjective and objective perspectives, historical data, and the importance of seeing beyond probability in risk assessment and decision-making processes.

carleyj
Download Presentation

Redefining Risk: Embracing Uncertainty Over Probability

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Probability does not exists – but does risk exist? Why uncertainty should replace probability in the definition of risk Terje Aven University of Stavanger Risk and uncertainty: ontologies and methods University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands 23-25 January 2013

  2. Kjerag bolt 1000 m down Peter is to jump onto the stone YES ! Does risk exist?

  3. Peter falls down A He is killed C Uncertainty U - the occurrence is unknown Inter-subjective Objective

  4. Statfjord A Does risk exist? YES !

  5. Government building Oslo 22 July 2011

  6. Risk (A,C,U) (C,U) A: Event, C: Consequences U: Uncertainty

  7. Risk description (A,C,U) (C,U) Q K C’ Q: Measure of uncertainty (e.g. P) K: Background knowledge C’: Specific consequences

  8. Risk perspective Probability-based Historical data Knowledge dimension Surprises + +

  9. The need for seeing beyond probability

  10. Subjective/knowledge-based probability K: background knowledge • P(A|K) =0.1 • The assessor compares his/her uncertainty (degree og belief) about the occurrence of the event A with drawing a specific ball from an urn that contains 10 balls (Lindley, 2000. Kaplan and Garrick 1981).

  11. Probability is a tool Person a: P(A) = 0.01 Person b: P(A) = 0.1 Probability is subjective - «it does not exist» (de Finetti)

  12. Does an objective probability exist ? x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Frequentist probability Not to reflect uncertainty but in some cases to reflect variation

  13. The need for seeing beyond probability

  14. P(head) = 0.5 P(attack) = 0.5 Strong knowledge Poor knowledge

  15. John offers you a game: throwing a die What is your risk? ”1,2,3,4,5”: 6 ”6”: -24

  16. Risk (C,P): • 6 5/6 • -24 1/6 Is based on an important assumption – the die is fair

  17. “Background knowledge” Assumption 1: … Assumption 2: … Assumption 3: … Assumption 4: … … Assumption 50: The platform jacket structure will withstand a ship collision energy of 14 MJ Assumption 51: There will be no hot work on the platform Assumption 52: The work permit system is adhered to Assumption 53: The reliability of the blowdown system is p Assumption 54: There will be N crane lifts per year … Assumption 100: … … Model: A very crude gas dispersion model is applied

  18. Risk concept cont. There is a need for seeing beyond the probabilities – must better cover the knowlede and lack of knowledge dimension

  19. A = leakage

  20. Mediocristan (Normalistan) • Extremistan (black swans) Nassim N. Taleb

  21. Threats Known unknowns Unknown unknowns (”black swans”) (A’, C’, Q, K)

  22. Analysis Management Risk analysis Cost-benefit analysis, Risk acceptance criteria … Management review and judgment Decision Risk-informed decision making

  23. Conclusions «Risk exists but not risk descriptions»

More Related