Society For Risk Analysis Annual Meeting 2017

Session Schedule & Abstracts

* Disclaimer: All presentations represent the views of the authors, and not the organizations that support their research. Please apply the standard disclaimer that any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in abstracts, posters, and presentations at the meeting are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other organization or agency. Meeting attendees and authors should be aware that this disclaimer is intended to apply to all abstracts contained in this document. Authors who wish to emphasize this disclaimer should do so in their presentation or poster. In an effort to make the abstracts as concise as possible and easy for meeting participants to read, the abstracts have been formatted such that they exclude references to papers, affiliations, and/or funding sources. Authors who wish to provide attendees with this information should do so in their presentation or poster.

Common abbreviations

Applied Risk Management: Risk Culture, Risk Values, and Compliance

Room: Salon H   10:30 am–12:00 pm

Chair(s): Patricia Larkin

Sponsored by Applied Risk Management Specialty Group

T2-G.1  10:30 am  Investigating the evolution of risk culture in disparate fields. Schell MC*, Schell KR, Abdulla A; University of Rochester, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and University of California, San Diego

Abstract: All organizations seek to minimize the risks that their operations pose to public safety. For some, this task takes on particular significance because they deal with complex and hazardous technologies. Five decades of research in the field of quantitative risk analysis have generated a set of overall risk management frameworks and best practices that extend across a range of such domains. Diagnoses and prescriptions for improving risk assessment and management rhyme regardless of domain, but treatment of risk generates different results. Here, we investigate the risk analysis and management ethos (we collectively term this the “risk culture”) in three different enterprises that require exceedingly high standards of execution: nuclear power, aviation, and medical physics. While the scope and class of risk in each domain is different, each has existed long enough for an evidence-based risk culture to develop, and the evolution of this culture is traceable in publications seminal to each. Among these three fields, the risk culture is oldest in aviation, and newest in medical physics. We conduct a textual analysis of the seminal risk documents in each of these three fields, and a citation network analysis to assess how siloed they have been, historically. We discover that nuclear power and aviation have synthesized risk cultures that borrow best practices from a wide range of disciplines, and especially from each other. There appears to be a distinct difference in medical physics’ engagement with the risk community: it is more isolated, and its best practices lag behind other fields’. We outline how this state of affairs may prove harmful, and provide recommendations for improving the risk culture in medical physics.

T2-G.2  10:50 am  Risk Governance and "Responsible Research and Innovation" Florin MV, van de Poel I*; TU Delft

Abstract: To increase its relevance to some of the challenges that managers face, risk governance must constantly adapt to objectives and priorities of organisations. One of those priorities, at least in the European Union, is that organisations develop research and innovation in a way that is "responsible". Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is thus defined by the EC Horizon 2020 programme as "an approach that anticipates and assesses potential implications and societal expectations with regard to research and innovation, with the aim to foster the design of inclusive and sustainable research and innovation". How can risk analysis and governance support RRI? The links between RRI and risk governance and the contribution that risk governance can make to the RRI priority and challenge will be addressed in this presentation. Two specific aspects will be developed: - how the field of risk governance can provide substance to the concept of RRI. Here we will discuss how risk governance can contribute to enhancing innovation, rather than constraining it, and how innovation can contribute to reducing risks; - how to embed RRI in the practice of organisations. Here we will discuss questions that researchers can consider to ensure that their work is in line with expectations from both risk governance and RRI.

T2-G.3  11:10 am  Helping make green New Zealand even greener: the challenges and rewards of a regulator sharing its risk assessment methodology. Bailey LB*, Bromfield KE, Corin C, Holmes G; [New Zealand] Environmental Protection Authority

Abstract: New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority (NZ-EPA) is responsible for evaluating new chemical products entering, or manufactured in, New Zealand under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. As part of this evaluation the NZ-EPA has conducted risk assessments in-house since its creation in 2011. Quantitative assessments are conducted on those hazardous substances that: contain a new active ingredient; are being used in a significantly different way; or where there are concerns regarding the impact substances are having on human health or the state of the environment. To increase transparency for industry bringing a new chemical into New Zealand the NZ-EPA is releasing guidelines for the first time. These explain how it incorporates qualitative and quantitative risk assessments with the ‘unique benefit’ and indigenous cultural assessment requirements in New Zealand. It is anticipated that the guidelines will also improve the trust and confidence that the NZ-EPA’s customers, including the New Zealand public and environment, have in its approach and decisions. The process of collating this methodology document has already improved the NZ-EPA’s internal risk analysis process by challenging its experienced staff to improve the justification for why models and parameters are selected. It highlighted several areas for further improvement in parameter selection and options for model choice improvements. These will need to be balanced against the timing and financial constraints of a small regulator and the associated regulatory, business and reputational risks. The NZ-EPA will use the release of its risk assessment methodology to encourage applicants to complete and submit their own comprehensive assessments, and will move towards evaluating these assessments rather than conducting them. This change will improve the practice of chemical risk analysis in New Zealand and meet the cultural and regulatory requirements for safer and greener substances.

T2-G.4  11:30 am  On the relation between safety outcomes and regulatory compliance. Wiersma RP*; Technical Standards and Safety Authority

Abstract: Regulations exist worldwide for the purpose of protecting the public good. A building code, for instance, may ensure that buildings are constructed to be fire resistant. Regulatory bodies often perform inspections to measure compliance and enforce adherence to the applicable regulations and codes. In the case of public safety, it is expected that complete compliance is necessary. An underlying assumption in this activity is that safety is related to the level of compliance. We compare different levels of measuring compliance with the aim of exploring the relation between observed safety and compliance. How do safety and compliance relate? How do risk and compliance relate? Is it possible to invoke cost-benefit analysis to determine the value of encouraging/enforcing compliance? If there are diminishing returns for compliance enforcement, is it possible to predict a point of ‘over-compliance’? We find that traditional ways of measuring compliance prove to be unsatisfactory and more novel approaches are proposed.

[back to schedule]