On the use of expert judgement in the qualification of risk assessment

Vaitoskirjan tavoitteena on kehittaa riskianalyysia menetelmana siten, etta asiantuntija-arvioiden rooli tasmentyy ja laajenee seka riskianalyysin laatu paranee. Vaitoskirjan erityisena kimmokkeena on ollut riskianalyysien lisaantynyt tarve merenkulun turvallisuuden kehittamisessa Suomen meriliikenteessa ja sen soveltamisessa havaitut menetelmalliset puutteet. Tutkimuksessa on kehitetty riskianalyysiin liittyvien epavarmuuksien maarittelyja seka niiden systemaattista arviointia. Tutkimuksessa on myos kehitetty riskianalyysin tulosten tulkinta- ja laadun arviointitapoja. Teknisemmat tutkimustulokset liittyvat kvantitatiivisten asiantuntija-arvioiden matemaattiseen yhdistamiseen. Vaitoskirjan tutkimustuloksilla on merkitysta riskitietoisessa paatoksenteossa yleensa, vaikka menetelmakehitys on demonstroitu merenkulun turvallisuuden, teknisen jarjestelman kunnonvalvonnan ja ohjelmistoluotettavuuden sovellusalueilla. Riskitietoisen paatoksenteon tarve nayttaa lisaantyvan niin yritysmaailmassa kuin julkisella sektorilla.

[1]  Enrico Zio,et al.  Two methods for the structured assessment of model uncertainty by experts in performance assessments of radioactive waste repositories , 1996 .

[2]  Veikko Rouhiainen QUASA: A method for assessing the quality of safety analysis , 1992 .

[3]  U Pulkkinen,et al.  A method for using expert judgement in PSA , 1997 .

[4]  Ronald L. Iman,et al.  Expert opinion in risk analysis: the NUREG-1150 methodology , 1989 .

[5]  Kaisa Simola,et al.  An expert panel approach to support risk-informed decision making , 2000 .

[6]  J. Stamatakos CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSES , 1999 .

[7]  Kaplan,et al.  ‘Combining Probability Distributions from Experts in Risk Analysis’ , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[8]  Urho Pulkkinen,et al.  Methods for combination of expert judgements , 1993 .

[9]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Risk communication: Towards a rational discourse with the public , 1992 .

[10]  D. Lindley The Philosophy of Statistics , 2000 .

[11]  Risto Tuominen,et al.  FSA Study on transportation of iron ore concentrate by pusher-barges on the Luleå-Raahe route , 2001 .

[12]  Terje Aven,et al.  Models and model uncertainty in the context of risk analysis , 2003, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[13]  L. Phillips A theory of requisite decision models , 1984 .

[14]  Clarence G. Feldmann,et al.  The practical guide to business process reengineering using IDEF0 , 1998 .

[15]  David Kay,et al.  Towards quality assurance of assessed waterborne risks , 2000 .

[16]  Vtt Tietopalvelu FINNUS The Finnish Research Programme on Nuclear Power Plant Safety 1999-2002 , 2002 .

[17]  Robert G. Easierling An Anatomy of Risk , 1977 .

[18]  T. Modis,et al.  Experts in uncertainty , 1993 .

[19]  L. Phillips,et al.  Faciliated Work Groups: Theory and Practice , 1993 .

[20]  Alan E. Gelfand,et al.  Bayesian statistics without tears: A sampling-resampling perspective , 1992 .

[21]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems , 1991 .

[22]  B. J. Garrick,et al.  Quality, peer review, and the achievement of consensus in probabilistic risk analysis , 1983 .

[23]  Milan Zeleny,et al.  An Anatomy of Risk , 1978 .

[24]  M. Qureshi,et al.  Choice of stakeholder groups and members in multicriteria decision models , 2000 .

[25]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[26]  Niels C. Lind Methods of Risk Analysis , 1987 .

[27]  Robert E. Melchers,et al.  On the ALARP approach to risk management , 2001, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[28]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[29]  Dale Hattis,et al.  What Should Be the Implications of Uncertainty, Variability, and Inherent “Biases”/“Conservatism” for Risk Management Decision-Making? , 1999 .

[30]  Eric P. Fox Bayesian Statistics 3 , 1991 .