Some perspectives on risk management: A security case study from the oil and gas industry

Abstract

This article provides some views on how managers should think about risk when facing challenging decision-making situations with large uncertainties and high values at stake. The article is based on the thesis that managers are well qualified for the proper understanding and management of such risk and uncertainties, but that there has been a lack of suitable conceptual frameworks available. We argue that the key to success in this respect is to be open to broader risk perspectives than the common damage probability view. Risk also has to reflect uncertainties, knowledge, and potential surprises. A security case taken from the oil and gas industry is used to illustrate the discussion. The main aim of the article is to guide managers and analysts on the conceptualization of risk and on which techniques and principles to adopt in order to understand, assess, manage, and communicate risk in relation to situations of large uncertainties and high values at stake.

Keywords

Risk analysis security analysis risk acceptance production system asset management asset management

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Statoil

ASA

. In Amenas attack. Report of the investigation into the terrorist attack on In Amenas. Prepared for Statoil ASA’s board of directors, http://www.statoil.com/no/NewsAndMedia/News/2013/Downloads/In%20Amenas%20report.pdf (2013, accessed 5 December 2014).

Lowrance

Of acceptable risk—science and the determination of safety. Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann Inc, 1976.

Kaplan

Garrick

BJ.

On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal 1981; 1: 11–27.

Ale

BJM

. Risk assessment practices in The Netherlands. Safety Sci 2002; 40: 105–126.

Bjerga

Aven

. How managers should think about risk—a case study from the oil and gas industry. In: Nowakowski

Mlynczak

Jodejko-Pietruczuk

. (eds) Safety and reliability: methodology and applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014, pp.437–444.

Aven

The risk concept—historical and recent development trends. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2011; 99: 33–44.

Hertz

Thomas

Risk analysis and its applications. Chichester: Wiley, 1983.

Hansson

Aven

Is risk analysis scientific?

Risk Anal 2014; 34(7): 1173–1183.

Alavi

Leidner

DE.

Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quart 2001; 107–136.

10.

Lemos

NM.

An introduction to the theory of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

11.

Chisholm

RM.

Theory of knowledge. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989.

12.

Dancy

An introduction to contemporary epistemology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985.

13.

Nonaka

A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ Sci 1994; 5(1): 14–37.

14.

Pollock

Cruz

Contemporary theories of knowledge. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.

15.

BonJour

Sosa

Epistemic justification: internalism vs. externalism, foundations vs. virtues. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003.

16.

Aven

On the meaning of a black swan in a risk context. Safety Sci 2013; 57: 44–51.

17.

Aven

Risk, surprises and black swans: fundamental ideas and concepts in risk assessment and risk management. London: Routledge, 2014.

18.

Keeney

Value-focused thinking: identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. Eur J Oper Res 1996; 92(3): 537–549.

19.

Flage

Aven

Expressing and communicating uncertainty in relation to quantitative risk analysis. Reliab Risk Anal: Theor Appl 2009; 2: 9–18.

20.

Dewar

JA.

Assumption-based planning: a tool for reducing avoidable surprises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

21.

McGrath

MacMillan

IC.

Discovery driven planning. Harvard Business Review 1995; 73(4): 44–54.

22.

Aven

Practical implications of the new risk perspectives. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2013; 115: 136–145.

23.

Lindley

DV.

The philosophy of statistics. J Roy Stat Soc D Sta 2000; 49: 293–337.

24.

Fishbein

Trevorton

Rethinking alternative analysis to address transnational threats. Occasional papers, 2004, vol. 3, no. 2. The Sherman Kent Center for Intelligence Analysis.

25.

George

RZ.

Fixing the problem of analytical mind-sets: alternative analysis. Int J Intell Counter Intell 2004; 17(3): 385–404.

26.

Heuer

Pherson

RH.

Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2010.

27.

Apostolakis

GE.

How useful is quantitative risk assessment?

Risk Anal 2004; 24: 515–520.

28.

Aven

Vinnem

JE.

Risk management, with applications from the offshore oil and gas industry. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2007.

29.

Aven

On different types of uncertainties in the context of the precautionary principle. Risk Anal 2011; 31: 1515–1525 (with discussion, pp.1538–1542).

30.

Hollnagel

Woods

Leveson

Resilience engineering. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006.

31.

Steen

Aven

A risk perspective suitable for resilience engineering. Safety Sci 2011; 49(2): 292–297.

32.

Paté-Cornell

On “black swans” and “perfect storms”: risk analysis and management when statistics are not enough. Risk Anal 2012; 32: 1823–1833.

33.

Weick

Sutcliffe

KM.

Managing the unexpected: resilient performance in an age of uncertainty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2007.

34.

Aven

Krohn

BS.

A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2014; 121: 1–10.

35.

Bjerga

Aven

Adaptive risk management using new risk perspectives—an example from the oil and gas industry. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2015; 134: 75–82.