Expert Judgements in Risk Analysis: a Strategy to Overcome Uncertainties

There is a need for a risk analysis technique specific for academic research laboratories. Since accurate accident data, normally required for quantitative risk analysis, are not available for this environment, expert judgements are often used to describe risks. However, these judgements are afflict...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: D. Pluess, A. Groso, T. Meyer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: AIDIC Servizi S.r.l. 2013-05-01
Series:Chemical Engineering Transactions
Online Access:https://www.cetjournal.it/index.php/cet/article/view/6831
_version_ 1818847478178381824
author D. Pluess
A. Groso
T. Meyer
author_facet D. Pluess
A. Groso
T. Meyer
author_sort D. Pluess
collection DOAJ
description There is a need for a risk analysis technique specific for academic research laboratories. Since accurate accident data, normally required for quantitative risk analysis, are not available for this environment, expert judgements are often used to describe risks. However, these judgements are afflicted with linguistic, lexical or informal uncertainties. As a consequence, analyses made by different experts can lead to different results, which make risks incomparable. The purpose of this work is to analyse the effect of these uncertainties and to test strategies to improve the accuracy of the risk estimation based on expert judgements. Different calculation methods were used to compare the obtained risk scores. Results show that a multiplication-based formula, as used, for example, in the Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA), has an inconsistent variance of the risk score distribution. Another approach, using a logarithm-sum-based formula, gives more consistent results but introduces other drawbacks. An estimation method based on Bayesian networks is giving more consistent variances, which are crucial for the risk estimation. With a higher precision of the risk score results, the prioritization of risks can be enhanced and resources can be better allocated to improve the level of occupational safety in academic research laboratories.
first_indexed 2024-12-19T06:02:05Z
format Article
id doaj.art-82f8b73a00e14b67b074d4a1c9b91182
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2283-9216
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-19T06:02:05Z
publishDate 2013-05-01
publisher AIDIC Servizi S.r.l.
record_format Article
series Chemical Engineering Transactions
spelling doaj.art-82f8b73a00e14b67b074d4a1c9b911822022-12-21T20:33:16ZengAIDIC Servizi S.r.l.Chemical Engineering Transactions2283-92162013-05-013110.3303/CET1331052Expert Judgements in Risk Analysis: a Strategy to Overcome UncertaintiesD. PluessA. GrosoT. MeyerThere is a need for a risk analysis technique specific for academic research laboratories. Since accurate accident data, normally required for quantitative risk analysis, are not available for this environment, expert judgements are often used to describe risks. However, these judgements are afflicted with linguistic, lexical or informal uncertainties. As a consequence, analyses made by different experts can lead to different results, which make risks incomparable. The purpose of this work is to analyse the effect of these uncertainties and to test strategies to improve the accuracy of the risk estimation based on expert judgements. Different calculation methods were used to compare the obtained risk scores. Results show that a multiplication-based formula, as used, for example, in the Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA), has an inconsistent variance of the risk score distribution. Another approach, using a logarithm-sum-based formula, gives more consistent results but introduces other drawbacks. An estimation method based on Bayesian networks is giving more consistent variances, which are crucial for the risk estimation. With a higher precision of the risk score results, the prioritization of risks can be enhanced and resources can be better allocated to improve the level of occupational safety in academic research laboratories.https://www.cetjournal.it/index.php/cet/article/view/6831
spellingShingle D. Pluess
A. Groso
T. Meyer
Expert Judgements in Risk Analysis: a Strategy to Overcome Uncertainties
Chemical Engineering Transactions
title Expert Judgements in Risk Analysis: a Strategy to Overcome Uncertainties
title_full Expert Judgements in Risk Analysis: a Strategy to Overcome Uncertainties
title_fullStr Expert Judgements in Risk Analysis: a Strategy to Overcome Uncertainties
title_full_unstemmed Expert Judgements in Risk Analysis: a Strategy to Overcome Uncertainties
title_short Expert Judgements in Risk Analysis: a Strategy to Overcome Uncertainties
title_sort expert judgements in risk analysis a strategy to overcome uncertainties
url https://www.cetjournal.it/index.php/cet/article/view/6831
work_keys_str_mv AT dpluess expertjudgementsinriskanalysisastrategytoovercomeuncertainties
AT agroso expertjudgementsinriskanalysisastrategytoovercomeuncertainties
AT tmeyer expertjudgementsinriskanalysisastrategytoovercomeuncertainties