Credibility in risk assessment
A framework has been developed in an attempt to provide a normative model for speaking about the credibility of risk assessments. It consists of a number of facets (for example completeness), and the facets group together a number of norms (for example the norm that risk assessments should explain the rationale for the categories of outcome they consider). These norms were derived from a study of the limitations of risk assessment methodology, developed from a set of expert interviews and a survey of the literature. This framework was applied to a case study of a risk assessment recently conducted in the maritime industry. The proposal is that the framework should contribute to 1) reflection on the part of risk assessors themselves, 2) reviews of risk assessments by stakeholders, particularly regulatory bodies, and 3) the processes by which organisations such as regulators specify what they want from risk assessments in their industries.
KeywordsRisk Assessment Contemporary Debate Maritime Industry Risk Assessment Methodology Credibility Norm
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Porter TM (1995). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton University Press (Princeton NJ).Google Scholar
- 2.Adams J (1995). Risk. UCL Press (London).Google Scholar
- 4.Hood C and Jones DKC (1996). Homeostatic versus collibrationist approaches to risk management. In Hood C and Jones DKC (eds.). Accident and Design. Contemporary Debates in Risk Management, UCL Press (London), 205–207.Google Scholar
- 6.Toft B (1996). Limits to the mathematical modelling of disasters. In Hood C and Jones DKC (eds.). Accident and Design. Contemporary Debates in Risk Management, UCL Press (London), 99–110.Google Scholar
- 7.Kvitrud A, Ersdal G and Leonhardsen RL (2001). On the risk of structural failure on Norwegian offshore installations. Proc. 11th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Stavanger, June 17-22, 459–464.Google Scholar
- 9.Cohen AV (1996). Quantitative risk assessment and decisions about risk. In Hood C and Jones DKC (eds.). Accident and Design. Contemporary Debates in Risk Management, UCL Press (London), 87–98.Google Scholar