Quantifying Risk and How It All Goes Wrong
Over the course of a twenty year study into the shortcomings with risk quantification the author has identified several fundamental errors in both the data and algorithms employed in probabilistic models. These are shown to have detrimental impacts on the perception of risk and choice of mitigations. The author argues that all forms of risk prediction (as opposed to statistics) distort understanding and distract effort away from more holistic methods, such as well reasoned arguments, for demonstrating ALARP. The psychological aspects of risk assessment have profound influences on both quantitative and qualitative assessment, because there is too much flexibility and subjectivity allowed in QRA/PRA and Risk Assessment Matrices for them to add any real value. It is concluded that, whilst UK legislation does not require quantification, or the assessment of risk tolerability, there exists a 'perfect storm' of conditions that maintain the status quo and obstructs a necessary paradigm shift for how risk should be assessed. This stalemate can only be broken by a rigorous challenge to the statistical and mathematical processes, legal interpretation and guidance.