Predicting the Validity of Expert Judgments in Assessing the Impact of Risk Mitigation Through Failure Prevention and Correction

被引:4
作者
Brito, Mario P. [1 ]
Dawson, Ian G. J. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Southampton, Ctr Risk Res, Risk Anal & Risk Management, Southampton, Hants, England
[2] Univ Southampton, Risk Management, Southampton, Hants, England
关键词
Autonomous unmanned vehicles; expert judgment; extreme environments; risk mitigation; risk perception; PROBABILITIES; UNCERTAINTY; PERFORMANCE; HEURISTICS; NUMBER; MODEL;
D O I
10.1111/risa.13539
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Operational risk management of autonomous vehicles in extreme environments is heavily dependent on expert judgments and, in particular, judgments of the likelihood that a failure mitigation action, via correction and prevention, will annul the consequences of a specific fault. However, extant research has not examined the reliability of experts in estimating the probability of failure mitigation. For systems operations in extreme environments, the probability of failure mitigation is taken as a proxy of the probability of a fault not reoccurring. Usinga prioriexpert judgments for an autonomous underwater vehicle mission in the Arctic anda posteriorimission field data, we subsequently developed a generalized linear model that enabled us to investigate this relationship. We found that the probability of failure mitigation alone cannot be used as a proxy for the probability of fault not reoccurring. We conclude that it is also essential to include the effort to implement the failure mitigation when estimating the probability of fault not reoccurring. The effort is the time taken by a person (measured in person-months) to execute the task required to implement the fault correction action. We show that once a modicum of operational data is obtained, it is possible to define a generalized linear logistic model to estimate the probability a fault not reoccurring. We discuss how our findings are important to all autonomous vehicle operations and how similar operations can benefit from revising expert judgments of risk mitigation to take account of the effort required to reduce key risks.
引用
收藏
页码:1928 / 1943
页数:16
相关论文
共 51 条
[41]  
Oakley J. E., 2010, Shelf: the sheffield elicitation framework (version 2.0)
[42]   EXPERT JUDGMENT IN RISK ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT - PROCESS, CONTEXT, AND PITFALLS [J].
OTWAY, H ;
VONWINTERFELDT, D .
RISK ANALYSIS, 1992, 12 (01) :83-93
[43]  
Phillips L. D., 1993, NSSR282 NIR, P158
[44]  
SINGH H, 2004, EOS T AGU, V85, P294
[45]   CHALLENGER - FINE-TUNING THE ODDS UNTIL SOMETHING BREAKS [J].
STARBUCK, WH ;
MILLIKEN, FJ .
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, 1988, 25 (04) :319-340
[46]   Fault mitigation in safety-critical software systems [J].
Subramanian, S ;
Elliott, L ;
Vishnuvajjala, RV ;
Tsai, WT ;
Mojdehbakhsh, R .
NINTH IEEE SYMPOSIUM ON COMPUTER-BASED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, PROCEEDINGS, 1996, :12-17
[47]   JUDGMENT UNDER UNCERTAINTY - HEURISTICS AND BIASES [J].
TVERSKY, A ;
KAHNEMAN, D .
SCIENCE, 1974, 185 (4157) :1124-1131
[48]   An asset residual life prediction model based on expert judgments [J].
Wang, W. ;
Zhang, W. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2008, 188 (02) :496-505
[49]   UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM ABOUT FUTURE LIFE EVENTS [J].
WEINSTEIN, ND .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1980, 39 (05) :806-820
[50]   An empirical test of the relative validity of expert and lay judgments of risk [J].
Wright, G ;
Bolger, F ;
Rowe, G .
RISK ANALYSIS, 2002, 22 (06) :1107-1122