Analysis and Consequences on Some Aggregation Functions of PRISM (Partial Risk Map) Risk Assessment Method

Abstract

The PRISM (partial risk map) methodology is a novel risk assessment method developed as the combination of the failure mode and effect analysis and risk matrix risk assessment methods. Based on the concept of partial risks, three different aggregation functions are presented for assessing incident risks. Since the different aggregation functions give different properties to the obtained PRISM numbers and threshold surfaces (convex, concave, linear), the description of these properties is carried out. Similarity analyses based on the sum of ranking differences (SRD) method and rank correlation are performed and robustness tests are applied related to the changes of the assessment scale lengths. The PRISM method provides a solution for the systematically criticized problem of the FMEA, i.e., it is not able to deal with hidden risks behind the aggregated RPN number, while the method results in an expressive tool for risk management. Applying new aggregation functions, proactive assessment can be executed, and predictions can be given related to the incidents based on the nature of their hidden risk. The method can be suggested for safety science environments where human safety, environmental protection, sustainable production, etc., are highly required.

Research on Risk Evaluation of Hydropower Engineering EPC Project Based on Improved Fuzzy Evidence Reasoning Model

“…If the index with the smaller difference degree is more important, the entropy value after normalization is used as the objective weight of the index; otherwise, the complementary value of entropy can be used as the objective weight of the index after normalization. e j is used to normalize Equation (18) to obtain the entropy value representing the importance of the evaluation decision of evaluation index j.…”

“…The relationship between each element and the final risk is ambiguous and random. Therefore, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model that considers this ambiguous relationship is widely used in risk evaluation [18,19]. Luo et al [20] method based on combinatorial weighting and cloud model better combines ambiguity and randomness, which provides a basis for comprehensive evaluation of dike safety and risk elimination reinforcement.…”

Towards Trustworthy Safety Assessment by Providing Expert and Tool-Based XMECA Techniques

“…Integrating systems theoretic process analysis with FMECA is suitable for hazard analysis and risk assessment and generation of safety requirements of modern software-intensive, complex safety-critical systems for road vehicles [22]. Research [23] highlights that condensation of several risk factors into one variable, the RPN (risk priority number), used in traditional FMECA, neglects a great deal of information; therefore, the PRISM method and some of its possible aggregation functions are presented to be more suitable for risk evaluation and prioritization in different cases.…”

Potential Model to Support the Achievement of Corporate Carbon Neutrality

“…In the case of both the risk matrices and the sustainability failure mode and effects analysis methods, the multiplication of factor values is the most common method in literature (schulte, Knuts, 2022;Losiewicz-Dniestrzanska, 2015;von Ahsen, Petruschke, Frick, 2022). Besides, the addition and square methods with their proved robust basic evaluation features provide evaluation functions of a different nature the application of which may strengthen multi-criteria assessment, along with the product of multiplication (Bognár, Hegedűs, 2022).…”

“…Depending on the measurement sensitivity of carbon emission, any number of various values may be generated, if emissions can be measured on a continuous scale, for instance in tonne of co2 2 equivalent. In the case of typical qualification scales -scales from one to four and one to ten -this methodology has proved to provide robust ranking results, so it can be recommended for the definition of the rankings of organisations, irrespective of the typical scale used for the assessment (Bognár, Hegedűs, 2022).…”