Systems-Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication

Risk Analysis

Volumn 32, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 1451-1467

  Haimes, Yacov Y ^a  

^a University of Virginia   (United States)

Author keywords

Dynamic roadmap; Guiding principles; Risk modeling; Systems of systems

Indexed keywords

ALEATORY UNCERTAINTY; COMMON DENOMINATORS; COMPLEX PROCESSES; DATA COLLECTION; FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; GUIDING PRINCIPLES; LOW PROBABILITY; METAMODELING; MULTIPLE MODELS; NEXTGEN; QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS; RISK MODELING; ROADMAP; STATE VARIABLES; SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS; SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS; TIME FRAME;

COMMUNICATION; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT;

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING;

GUIDELINE; PROBABILITY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; RISK PERCEPTION; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84865300984     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01809.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Federal Aviation Administration, FAA's NextGen: Implementation Plan. Washington, DC : NextGen Integration and Implementation Office, March 2010.
2. Lowrance W. Of Acceptable Risk. Los Altos, CA : William Kaufmann, 1976.
3. Kaplan S, Garrick B. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1981; 1(1):11-27.
4. Haimes Y. Hierarchical holographic modeling. IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans. 1981; 11(9):606-617.
5. Haimes Y. Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management, 3rd ed. New York : Wiley, 2009.
6. Haimes, Y. On the complex quantification of risk: Systems-based perspective on terrorism. Risk Analysis, 2011; 31(8):1175-1186.
7. Kaplan S, Haimes Y, Garrick B. Fitting hierarchical holographic modeling into the theory of scenario structuring and a resulting refinement of the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 2001; 21(5):807-815.
8. McCormick N. Reliability and Risk Analysis. New York : Academic Press, 1981.
9. Perrow C. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. NJ : Princeton University Press, 1984 [revised 1999].
10. Taleb N. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. New York : Random House, 2007.
11. Phimister J, Bier V, Kunreuther H. (eds). Accident Precursors Analysis and Management: Reducing Technological Risk Through Diligence, Section I; 3-34. Washington, DC : National Academy of Engineering, National Academies Press, 2004.
12. Duderstadt J, Wulf W, Zemsky R. Envisioning a transformed university. Issues in Science and Technology, National Academies Press. 2005; 22(1):35-41.
13. Haimes Y. Total risk management. Risk Analysis, 1991; 11(2):169-171.
14. Pate-Cornell E. Organizational aspects of engineering system safety: The case of offshore platforms. Science, 1990; 250: 1210-1217.
15. Chen C. Linear System Theory and Design, 3rd ed. New York : Oxford University Press, 1999.
16. Maier MW. Architecting principle for systems-of-systems. Systems Engineering. 1998; 1(4):267-284.
17. Sage AP, Biemer SM. Processes for system family architecting, design and integration. IEEE Systems Journal, 2007; 1(1):5-16.
18. Haimes YY. Modeling complex systems of systems with phantom system models. To appear in Systems Engineering 2012; 15(2).
19. Ehrgott M. Multicriteria Optimization, 2nd ed. New York : Springer, 2005.
20. Chankong V, Haimes Y. Multiobjective Decision Making: Theory and Methodology. New York : Dover, 2008.
21. Keeney R, Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives. New York : Wiley, 1976.
22. Pareto V. Cours d'économic politique professé a l'université de Lausanne. Vol. I, in-8 de v-430 pages. Rouge, editeur a Lausanne; Pichon, libraire a Paris, 1896.
23. Kuhn HW, Tucker AW. Pp. 481-492 in Nonlinear Programming, Proceedings, 2nd Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Berkeley, CA : University of California Press, 1951.
24. Paté-Cornell E. Uncertainties in risk analysis: Six levels of treatment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 1996; 54:95-111.
25. Apostolakis G. The distinction between aleatory and epistemic uncertainties is important: An example from the inclusion of aging effects into probabilistic safety assessment. Pp. 22-25 in Proceedings of PSA'99, August. Washington, DC : American Nuclear Society, 1999.
26. Morgan G, Henrion M. Uncertainty. Cambridge, MA : Cambridge University Press, 1990.
27. Slovic P. Terrorism as hazard: A new species of trouble. Risk Analysis, 2002; 22(3):425-426.
28. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Why study risk perception? Risk Analysis, 1982; 2(2):83-93.
29. Slovic P. The Perception of Risk. Sterling, VA : Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2000.
30. Ang AH, Tang WH. Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design, Vol. 2. New York : Wiley Publications, 1984.
31. Fischer RA, Tippett LHC. Limiting forms of the frequency distribution of the largest of smallest numbers of a sample. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 1927; 24:180-190.
32. Gnedenko B. The Theory of Probability. Translated from Russian by Seckler, B. New York : Chelsea Publishing Company, 1963.
33. Gumbel EJ. Statistical Theory of Extreme Values and Some Practical Applications, Applied Mathematical Series, 3. Washington, DC : National Bureau of Standards, 1954.
34. Li D, Haimes YY. The envelope approach for multiobjective optimization problems. IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans. 1987; 17(6):1026-1038.
35. Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary. Springfield, MA : Merriam-Webster, 1976.