Formal Vulnerability Assessment of a maritime transportation system

被引:95
作者
Berle, Oyvind [1 ]
Asbjornslett, Bjorn Egil [1 ]
Rice, James B. [2 ]
机构
[1] Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol, Dept Marine Technol, N-7034 Trondheim, Norway
[2] MIT, Ctr Transportat & Logist, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
关键词
Supply chain disruptions; Vulnerability; Failure modes; Maritime transportation; Resilience; SUPPLY CHAIN DISRUPTIONS; RISK; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.ress.2010.12.011
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
World trade increasingly relies on longer, larger and more complex supply chains, where maritime transportation is a vital backbone of such operations. Long and complex supply chain systems are more prone to being vulnerable, though through reviews, no specific methods have been found to assess vulnerabilities of a maritime transportation system. Most existing supply chain risk assessment frameworks require risks to be foreseen to be mitigated, rather than giving transportation systems the ability to cope with unforeseen threats and hazards. In assessing cost-efficiency, societal vulnerability versus industrial cost of measures should be included. This conceptual paper presents a structured Formal Vulnerability Assessment (FVA) methodology, seeking to transfer the safety-oriented Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) framework into the domain of maritime supply chain vulnerability. To do so, the following two alterations are made: (1) The focus of the assessment is defined to ensure the ability of the transportation to serve as a throughput mechanism of goods, and to survive and recover from disruptive events. (2) To cope with low-frequency high-impact disruptive scenarios that were not necessarily foreseen, two parallel tracks of risk assessments need to be pursued the cause-focused risk assessment as in the FSA, and a consequence-focused failure mode approach. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:696 / 705
页数:10
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]  
Allen L., 2004, Understanding market, credit and operational risk
[2]  
[Anonymous], GLOB RISKS 2008 GLOB
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2008, INT EN AG WORLD EN O
[4]   Assess the vulnerability of your production system [J].
Asbjornslett, BE ;
Rausand, M .
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL, 1999, 10 (03) :219-229
[5]  
Barnes P., 2005, J INT MANAG, V11, P519, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.INTMAN.2005.09.008
[6]  
BERLE O, 2010, P ESREL, P190
[7]   A critical review of conventional terminology for classifying seaports [J].
Bichou, K ;
Gray, R .
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART A-POLICY AND PRACTICE, 2005, 39 (01) :75-92
[8]  
BROADMAN HG, 1984, ENERG POLICY, V14, P242
[9]  
Carbone V., 2003, MARIT POLICY MANAG, V30, P305, DOI [DOI 10.1080/0308883032000145618, 10.1080/0308883032000145618]
[10]  
Chang S.E., 2000, J TRANSP GEOGR, V8, P53