Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn today's highly competitive business environment, firms strive to maximize profitability by minimizing or eliminating disruptions and failures to maintain a competitive edge. This study focuses on evaluating risks in a hydraulic pump factory as a means to achieve sustainable growth. To accomplish this, a team of experts was formed to identify potential errors, utilizing a combination of risk priority number criteria weighted by Fuzzy Shannon's entropy and a fusion of multi‐criteria decision‐making and failure mode and effects analysis for evaluating and ranking failures. Moreover, the study emphasizes the importance of considering the interaction among risk assessment indicators, the inclusion of cost of failure, and modeling under fuzzy uncertainty circumstances, as they have a notable impact on the final ranking of failures to be processed for risk mitigation action planning. This research brings a new dimension to enhance the overall effectiveness of risk assessment by aggregation, as evidenced by a novel use of data classification in machine learning and correlation in statistics. The findings indicate that the aggregated ranking data series is best matched and most influenced by the weighted aggregated sum product assessment method, with the highest rate of recall and precision accomplished.

Any practical process of risk ranking must group hazards into a manageable number of categories. Defining such categories requires value choices that can have important implications for the rankings that result. Most risk‐management organizations will find it useful to begin defining categories in terms of environmental loadings or initiating events. However, the resulting categories typically need to be modified in light of other considerations. Risk‐ranking projects can benefit from considering several alternative categorization strategies and drawing upon elements of each in developing their final categorization of risks. In principle, conducting multiple ranking exercises by using different categorizations could be interesting and useful. In practice, agencies are unlikely to have either the resources or patience to do this, but other groups in society might. Done well, such additional independent rankings could add valuable inputs to democratic risk‐management decision making.

We propose to pool alternative systemic risk rankings for financial institutions using the method of principal components. The resulting overall ranking is less affected by estimation uncertainty and model risk. We apply our methodology to disentangle the common signal and the idiosyncratic components from a selection of key systemic risk rankings that have been proposed recently. We use a sample of 113 listed financial sector firms in the European Union over the period 2002-2013. The implied ranking from the principal components is less volatile than most individual risk rankings and leads to less turnover among the top ranked institutions. We also find that price-based rankings and fundamentals-based rankings deviated substantially and for a prolonged time in the period leading up to the financial crisis. We test the adequacy of our newly pooled systemic risk ranking by relating it to credit default swap premia.

We propose to pool alternative systemic risk rankings for financial institutions using the method of principal components. The resulting overall ranking is less affected by estimation uncertainty and model risk. We apply our methodology to disentangle the common signal and the idiosyncratic components from a selection of key systemic risk rankings that are recently proposed. We use a sample of 113 listed financial sector firms in the European Union over the period 2002-2013. The implied ranking from the principal components is less volatile than most individual risk rankings and leads to less turnover among the top ranked institutions. We also find that price-based rankings and fundamentals based rankings deviated substantially and for a prolonged time in the period leading up to the financial crisis. We test the adequacy of our newly pooled systemic risk ranking by relating it to credit default swap premia.

AbstractThis paper develops and applies a methodology for multicriteria risk assessment aiming to overcome the limitations of the conventional failure mode and effect analysis where risk evaluation is performed at the higher level consideration of occurrence, severity, and detection. Breaking down these higher level criteria into a set of parameters and variables makes it possible to analyse in greater detail the physical, environmental, and process conditions of the components in response to the activities of factors of biological, chemical, and mechanical stresses. By adopting a framework comprising multicriteria decision analysis, Delphi method, nominal group technique, and technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution, the fidelity, transparency, and repeatability of the assessment are ensured. The highlight of the paper is the demonstration of the capability of the model for time dependent assessment, which allows the comparison between different states of the asset's conditions through alteration in the risk profiles. The analysis conducted shows the efficient applicability of the method for the reference case study of an offshore oil and gas support structure, proving its relevance for systems of similar class.

This product is not available separately, it is only sold as part of a set. There are 750 products in the set and these are all sold as one entity, Risk assessment is considered by many analysts to be an objective scientific tool. It is considered to be variously influenced by broader issues which in turn have important practical implications both for risk assessors and decision makers. Risk Assessment and Risk Management examines a range of practical applications of risk assessment methods and risk management procedures in the broad context of environmental science and technology. Written by acknowledged experts in the field, the articles cover a variety of areas, with reference to subjects as diverse as BSE, the use of risk assessment in government, using computer modelling as an aid to risk assessment in the case of accidental contamination of rivers and estuaries, quantitative cancer risk assessment related to carcinogens in the environment, landfilling of household wastes, environmental risk assessment and management of chemicals, and aquatic risk assessment and management of pesticides. This book provides a detailed and wide-ranging review of the many aspects of risk assessment and risk management which have excited so much debate and controversy in recent times. It will be essential reading for all those involved in the assessment and management of risk, particularly in the context of environmental science

Defined errors are entered into data collections in order to test their influence on the reliability of multivariate rankings. Random numbers and real ranking data serve as data origins.
In the course of data collection small random errors often lead to a switch in ranking, which can influence the general ranking picture considerably. For stabilisation an objective weighting method is evaluated. The robustness of these rankings is then compared to the original forms.
Robust forms of the published Shanghai top 100 rankings are calculated and compared to each other. As a result, the possibilities and restrictions of this type of weighting become recognisable.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine if gendered differences in risk perception automatically mean that women and men rank the hazards of their community differently, focusing any risk reduction measures on the priority risks of only part of the population.Design/methodology/approachThe study applies survey research through structured personal interviews in three municipalities in El Salvador. The data are analysed using SPSS to find statistically significant associations.FindingsIt was found that there are no significant differences between the ranking of hazards of women and men in the studied communities. However, several other parameters have significant associations with the ranking of hazards, indicating that there are more dividing lines than gender that may influence priorities of risk reduction initiatives.Research limitations/implicationsA quantitative study can only indicate how gender and other parameters influence the ranking of hazards. In order to understand why, it must be complemented with qualitative research.Practical implicationsThis study indicates that it is vital to communicate with and invite as wide a group of people as possible to participate in the risk reduction process. Not only women and men, but representatives with various livelihoods, income levels, level of education, locations of their dwellings, etc. If not, there is a danger that vital needs and opinions are left out and community commitments to risk reduction measures limited.Originality/valueThe paper presents a new pragmatic argument for wider participation in disaster risk reduction to policy makers and practitioners in the field.

Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment -- Copyright -- Other Recent Reports Of The Board On Environmental Studies And Toxicology -- Preface -- Contents -- Executive Summary -- REGULATION OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS -- CHARGE TO THE STUDY COMMITTEE -- CURRENT RISK-ASSESSMENT PRACTICES -- STRATEGIES FOR RISK ASSESSMENT -- Flexibility and the Use of Default Options -- Recommendations -- Validation: Methods and Models -- Recommendations -- Priority-Setting and Data Needs -- Recommendations -- Variability -- Recommendations -- Uncertainty -- Recommendations -- Aggregation -- Recommendations -- Communicating Risk -- Recommendation -- An Iterative Approach -- Recommendations -- OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS -- 1 Introduction -- Charge To The Committee -- Conceptual Framework Of The Report -- Part I Current Approaches to Risk Assessment -- 2 Risk Assessment and Its Social and Regulatory Contexts -- General Concepts -- What is Risk Assessment? -- How Is Risk Assessment Conducted? -- What is the Relationship Between Risk Assessment and Research? -- What is the Relationship Between Risk Assessment and Regulatory Decision-Making? -- What Is a Default Option? -- Historical Roots -- Early Efforts to Establish Safe Limits of Exposure to Toxic Substances -- The Problem of Carcinogens -- NRC Study Of Risk Assessment In The Federal Government -- Events After Release Of The 1983 NRC Report -- Uses Of Risk Assessment In The Regulation Of Hazardous Air Pollutants -- Noncancer Risk Associated With Hazardous Air Pollutants -- Public Criticism Of Conduct And Uses Of Risk Assessment -- Criticisms Pertaining to Conduct of Risk Assessment -- Criticisms Pertaining to the Relationship Between Risk Assessment and Risk Management -- Note -- 3 Exposure Assessment -- Introduction -- 1992 Exposure-Assessment Guidelines.