A methodology to evaluate risk for supporting decisions involving alignment with organizational values

Abstract There is an increasing need for organizations to evaluate aspects that are not easily quantified, such as alignment with organizational values, within their strategic planning decisions. These aspects are often insufficiently understood and are rapidly changing, with potential to cause severe negative consequences. Because there is no accepted methodology for characterizing these aspects, this type of risk is often neglected or given inadequate attention. This paper develops a methodology to evaluate risk and uncertainty related to alignment with organizational values. The methodology builds on risk perspectives involving uncertainties and knowledge rather than probability estimates. We illustrate the methodology on an application within the energy sector. This paper is relevant for both public and private sector organizations who face the dilemma of “what you cannot measure you cannot manage”, implying a struggle to include low-data and low-knowledge aspects into risk-based decisions.

[1]  Terje Aven,et al.  Improving risk characterisations in practical situations by highlighting knowledge aspects, with applications to risk matrices , 2017, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[2]  Jason R. W. Merrick,et al.  Making Decisions About Safety in US Ports and Waterways , 2007, Interfaces.

[3]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making , 2003 .

[5]  M. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell,et al.  Uncertainties in risk analysis: Six levels of treatment , 1996 .

[6]  Ronald A. Howard,et al.  The Foundations of Decision Analysis , 1968, IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern..

[7]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. , 1977 .

[8]  Terje Aven,et al.  Interpretations of alternative uncertainty representations in a reliability and risk analysis context , 2011, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[9]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Science for the Post-Normal Age , 1993, Commonplace.

[10]  T. Aven.  Foundations of risk analysis , 2003 .

[11]  Terje Aven,et al.  On the Difference Between Risk as Seen From the Perspectives of the Analysts and Management , 2016 .

[12]  T. Aven,et al.  EXPRESSING AND COMMUNICATING UNCERTAINTY IN RELATION TO QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS , 2009 .

[13]  James H Lambert,et al.  Decision Analysis and Risk Models for Land Development Affecting Infrastructure Systems , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  S. Kaplan,et al.  On The Quantitative Definition of Risk , 1981 .

[15]  James H. Lambert,et al.  Quantification of Scenarios and Stakeholders Influencing Priorities for Risk Mitigation in Infrastructure Systems , 2014 .

[16]  Jelena Mirkovic,et al.  Testing a Collaborative DDoS Defense In a Red Team/Blue Team Exercise , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[17]  E. Triantaphyllou,et al.  A Sensitivity Analysis Approach for Some Deterministic Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods* , 1997 .

[18]  Bilal M. Ayyub,et al.  Elicitation of expert opinions for uncertainty and risks: Answer to the Book Review by Roger M. Cooke , 2003, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[19]  Ralph Langner,et al.  Stuxnet: Dissecting a Cyberwarfare Weapon , 2011, IEEE Security & Privacy.

[20]  Terje Aven,et al.  Implications of black swans to the foundations and practice of risk assessment and management , 2015, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[21]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  James H. Lambert,et al.  Integrated risk management of safety and development on transportation corridors , 2015, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[23]  Terje Aven,et al.  The flaws of the ISO 31000 conceptualisation of risk , 2017 .

[24]  J. Harrison,et al.  Managing for Stakeholders, Stakeholder Utility Functions, and Competitive Advantage. , 2010 .

[25]  H. Thomas,et al.  Risk analysis and its applications , 1983 .

[26]  Robert J. Chapman,et al.  The effectiveness of working group risk identification and assessment techniques , 1998 .

[27]  I. Janis.  Victims of Groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. By Irving L. Janis. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972. viii + 276 pp. Map, illustrations, chart, notes, sources, bibliography, and index. Cloth, $7.95; paper $4.50.) , 1973 .

[28]  Michael Warner,et al.  Sources and methods for the study of intelligence , 2006 .

[29]  Daoud Ait Kadi,et al.  A STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW OF FMEA/FMECA , 1994 .

[30]  Charles R. Schwenk,et al.  Agreement and thinking alike: ingredients for poor decisions , 1990 .

[31]  Elisabeth Paté-Cornell,et al.  On “Black Swans” and “Perfect Storms”: Risk Analysis and Management When Statistics Are Not Enough , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[32]  Seth D. Guikema,et al.  Whose uncertainty assessments (probability distributions) does a risk assessment report: the analysts' or the experts'? , 2011, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[33]  Yacov Y. Haimes,et al.  Hierarchical Holographic Modeling , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[34]  Enrico Zio,et al.  Uncertainty in Risk Assessment: The Representation and Treatment of Uncertainties by Probabilistic and Non-Probabilistic Methods , 2013 .