Engineering Modeling

Risk Identification and Mitigation: A Engineer’s Perspective

Karl - CB Expert

Share:

Print

Rate article:

No rating
Rate this article:
No rating

The recent and ongoing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has raised some questions as to the preparedness of Big Oil to respond to an emergency spill.  An examination of their emergency spill plans has garnered criticism but is it justified?  How much effort should companies spend on risk identification and mitigation?

 

In the background of Obama’s showdown with British Petroleum’s executives occurred a congressional hearing on oil companies’ emergency spill plans. Lawmakers attacked five oil giants (BP, Exxon Mobil, Conoco Phillips, Chevron & Shell) for their “cookie-cutter” oil spill plans, all written by the same Texas subcontractor with 35 employees. Three of them listed the phone number for the same marine-science expert who died in ’05. Four of them listed walruses as needing protection in the Gulf. (Walruses do not live in the Gulf.) All of them used common assumptions despite the different types of exploration wells under scrutiny. Representative Waxman (D-Calif.) made this statement: “When you look at the details, it becomes evident these plans are just paper exercises.”
This comes as no surprise to me. Having worked as a Product Engineer in three different industries, I have seen my share of risk-taking (or risk-ignoring) and noted common trends from all. One trend is that once a risk-assessment procedure has been initiated and seemingly completed, management and the team considers the task done. One of the more popular risk-assessment tools out there is Failure Modes & Effects Analysis (FMEA). Any engineer that has been properly trained in the methodology should tell you that the FMEA is a “living document.” Meaning it continues to live and breathe with the attention of the engineers on a frequent and regular basis. Certainly, at the onset of a new development program or imminent launch, a lot of energy is and should be directed at identifying the inherent risks based on current knowledge. With team effort, the FMEA document provides a framework by which team members in a regular meeting identify the key risks and their impact, frequency, and ability to detect risks as they arise. Once the first pass is done, the team then examines and implements ways to minimize the risk.
A problem is, once the program has been launched or even after the first pass FMEA, management naturally ramps down the staffing to minimal levels and re-assigns the excess. The mental attitude is “we’ve done this, now it’s time to do something else.” Whoever is left has no time to revisit the FMEA. No longer is the FMEA a living document; it is stored for auditing or, even more deviously, to be recycled on another similar program. In my initial days working for an automotive supplier, I was appalled at the suggestion that we take an existing program’s FMEA, change the title to reflect our program and do nothing else. I believe Waxman’s “cookie-cutter” observation was spot-on.
No-one wants to reinvent the wheel. Manpower is precious and expensive and should be utilized to its maximum benefit. Even during a program’s heyday, engineers are reluctant to adjust a previous program’s risk assessment (in fear they appear to be correcting others), despite new data that says otherwise. It is in our nature to defend and fixate on a well-worn methodology while closing our minds to new thoughts. Quite frequently, the programs under scrutiny are behind schedule and extra effort to search out lesser-known risks is (correctly) perceived as a completion delay. No engineer wants to be the lone voice “crying wolf” when the rest of the team just wants to get the nightmare over with. (There could be other nightmares down the road but let us at least lay this one to rest.) This goes on at all firms, trying to find that right balance of social responsibility yet “optimizing” resource utilization for better profits.
Not that I am advocating reinventing the wheel. But what I am advocating is that the risk-assessment-mitigation procedure should continue to be looked at diplomatically with fresh eyes along with old ones, long after the initial flurry of activity ensues. My proposal would mandate a certain percentage of manpower continually look at and revise the risk mitigation plans of any product or process currently running. Of course, it is easy enough to say we need more manpower and yet another to commit those resources, especially in publicly-owned firms where this and future quarters must show ever-expanding cash flows. In that case, should we just quietly admit we are playing with fire and suffer the consequences like BP is doing now?
Then there are the governmental oversight agencies. The incestuous relationship between Mineral Management Service (MMS) and the oil companies they regulate is well documented. Not as well highlighted is the intertwining of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and automotive giants (Toyota, Ford, GM, etc). Many NHTSA employees are former workers of the industry. A lesser-known reality is that NHTSA does not automatically test all cars for safety but allows the OEMs to self-regulate themselves. The OEMs are responsible to test their products based on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) requirements with the potential threat of NHTSA performing their own checks.
Where should we draw the line? Do we let the current incestuous relationships between government and industry mandate how much effort is spent on risk identification and mitigation along with “fresh eyes”? How would we track that? What would the required manpower percentage be (2%, 5%, 10%)?  Do we require oversight agencies to maintain a maximum, not-to-be-exceeded percentage of “insider” staffers? (Couldn’t we say the same about allowing former lobbyists to work in government bureaucracies?) How do we do a better job of preventing disasters while maintaining healthy profits? How do we break up the party?

Comments

Collapse Expand Comments (0)
You don't have permission to post comments.

Oracle Crystal Ball Spreadsheet Functions For Use in Microsoft Excel Models

Oracle Crystal Ball has a complete set of functions that allows a modeler to extract information from both inputs (assumptions) and outputs (forecast). Used the right way, these special Crystal Ball functions can enable a whole new level of analytics that can feed other models (or subcomponents of the major model).

Understanding these is a must for anybody who is looking to use the developer kit.

Why are analytics so important for the virtual organization? Read these quotes.

Jun 26 2013
6
0

Since the mid-1990s academics and business leaders have been striving to focus their businesses on what is profitable and either partnering or outsourcing the rest. I have assembled a long list of quotes that define what a virtual organization is and why it's different than conventional organizations. The point of looking at these quotes is to demonstrate that none of these models or definitions can adequately be achieved without some heavy analytics and integration of both IT (the wire, the boxes and now the cloud's virtual machines) and IS - Information Systems (Applications) with other stakeholder systems and processes. Up till recently it could be argued that these things can and could be done because we had the technology. But the reality is, unless you were an Amazon, e-Bay or Dell, most firms did not necessarily have the money or the know-how to invest in these types of inovations.

With the proliferation of cloud services, we are finding new and cheaper ways to do things that put these strategies in the reach of more managers and smaller organizations. Everything is game... even the phone system can be handled by the cloud. Ok, I digress, Check out the following quotes and imagine being able to pull these off without analytics.

The next posts will treat some of the tools and technologies that are available to make these business strategies viable.

Multi-Dimensional Portfolio Optimization with @RISK

Jun 28 2012
16
0

Many speak of organizational alignment, but how many tell you how to do it? Others present only the financial aspects of portfolio optimization but abstract from how this enables the organization to meets its business objectives.  We are going to present a practical method that enables organizations to quickly build and optimize a portfolio of initiatives based on multiple quantitative and qualitative dimensions: Revenue Potential, Value of Information, Financial & Operational Viability and Strategic Fit. 
                  
This webinar is going to present these approaches and how they can be combined to improve both tactical and strategic decision making. We will also cover how this approach can dramatically improve organizational focus and overall business performance.

We will discuss these topics as well as present practical models and applications using @RISK.

Reducing Project Costs and Risks with Oracle Primavera Risk Analysis

.It is a well-known fact that many projects fail to meet some or all of their objectives because some risks were either: underestimated, not quantified or unaccounted for. It is the objective of every project manager and risk analysis to ensure that the project that is delivered is the one that was expected. With the right know-how and the right tools, this can easily be achieved on projects of almost any size. We are going to present a quick primer on project risk analysis and how it can positively impact the bottom line. We are also going to show you how Primavera Risk Analysis can quickly identify risks and performance drivers that if managed correctly will enable organizations to meet or exceed project delivery expectations.

.

 

Modeling Time-Series Forecasts with @RISK


Making decisions for the future is becoming harder and harder because of the ever increasing sources and rate of uncertainty that can impact the final outcome of a project or investment. Several tools have proven instrumental in assisting managers and decision makers tackle this: Time Series Forecasting, Judgmental Forecasting and Simulation.  

This webinar is going to present these approaches and how they can be combined to improve both tactical and strategic decision making. We will also cover the role of analytics in the organization and how it has evolved over time to give participants strategies to mobilize analytics talent within the firm.  

We will discuss these topics as well as present practical models and applications using @RISK.

The Need for Speed: A performance comparison of Crystal Ball, ModelRisk, @RISK and Risk Solver


Need for SpeedA detailed comparison of the top Monte-Carlo Simulation Tools for Microsoft Excel

There are very few performance comparisons available when considering the acquisition of an Excel-based Monte Carlo solution. It is with this in mind and a bit of intellectual curiosity that we decided to evaluate Oracle Crystal Ball, Palisade @Risk, Vose ModelRisk and Frontline Risk Solver in terms of speed, accuracy and precision. We ran over 20 individual tests and 64 million trials to prepare comprehensive comparison of the top Monte-Carlo Tools.

 

Excel Simulation Show-Down Part 3: Correlating Distributions

Escel Simulation Showdown Part 3: Correlating DistributionsModeling in Excel or with any other tool for that matter is defined as the visual and/or mathematical representation of a set of relationships. Correlation is about defining the strength of a relationship. Between a model and correlation analysis, we are able to come much closer in replicating the true behavior and potential outcomes of the problem / question we are analyzing. Correlation is the bread and butter of any serious analyst seeking to analyze risk or gain insight into the future.

Given that correlation has such a big impact on the answers and analysis we are conducting, it therefore makes a lot of sense to cover how to apply correlation in the various simulation tools. Correlation is also a key tenement of time series forecasting…but that is another story.

In this article, we are going to build a simple correlated returns model using our usual suspects (Oracle Crystal Ball, Palisade @RISK , Vose ModelRisk and RiskSolver). The objective of the correlated returns model is to take into account the relationship (correlation) of how the selected asset classes move together. Does asset B go up or down when asset A goes up – and by how much? At the end of the day, correlating variables ensures your model will behave correctly and within the realm of the possible.

Copulas Vs. Correlation

Copulas and Rank Order Correlation are two ways to model and/or explain the dependence between 2 or more variables. Historically used in biology and epidemiology, copulas have gained acceptance and prominence in the financial services sector.

In this article we are going to untangle what correlation and copulas are and how they relate to each other. In order to prepare a summary overview, I had to read painfully dry material… but the results is a practical guide to understanding copulas and when you should consider them. I lay no claim to being a stats expert or mathematician… just a risk analysis professional. So my approach to this will be pragmatic. Tools used for the article and demo models are Oracle Crystal Ball 11.1.2.1. and ModelRisk Industrial 4.0

Excel Simulation Show-Down Part 2: Distribution Fitting

 

One of the cool things about professional Monte-Carlo Simulation tools is that they offer the ability to fit data. Fitting enables a modeler to condensate large data sets into representative distributions by estimating the parameters and shape of the data as well as suggest which distributions (using these estimated parameters) replicates the data set best.

Fitting data is a delicate and very math intensive process, especially when you get into larger data sets. As usual, the presence of automation has made us drop our guard on the seriousness of the process and the implications of a poorly executed fitting process/decision. The other consequence of automating distribution fitting is that the importance of sound judgment when validating and selecting fit recommendations (using the Goodness-of-fit statistics) is forsaken for blind trust in the results of a fitting tool.

Now that I have given you the caveat emptor regarding fitting, we are going to see how each tools offers the support for modelers to make the right decisions. For this reason, we have created a series of videos showing comparing how each tool is used to fit historical data to a model / spreadsheet. Our focus will be on :

The goal of this comparison is to see how each tool handles this critical modeling feature.  We have not concerned ourselves with the relative precision of fitting engines because that would lead us down a rabbit hole very quickly – particularly when you want to be empirically fair.

RESEARCH ARTICLES | RISK + CRYSTAL BALL + ANALYTICS