Search results

The purpose of this paper is to review the methods for assessing food safety risk within a food safety plan.

The research involved analysis of both qualitative and quantitative methods of risk assessment.

Risk assessment is a key element of the HACCP approach to food safety. It requires food business operators and those on HACCP teams to determine both the acceptable level of contamination and the risk for the food business, and ultimately the consumer. The choice of food safety risk assessment model is crucial to an organisation. The mechanisms to determine what is acceptable can be a combination of scientific based and value based criteria and utilise qualitative or semi‐quantitative approaches. Whilst fuzzy logic has a place in making risk assessment more quantitative; specific software tools are required to enable quantitative risk assessment especially where what is acceptable at one point could, subject to other factors later in the supply chain, change to an unacceptable level of risk to the consumer. Quantitative mechanisms are required to make these decisions at organisational, or indeed at policy level, fully transparent.

This research is of academic value and of value to policy makers and practitioners in the food supply chain.

Risk-based land-use planning is a major tool for reducing risks and enabling communities to design for and mitigate against natural hazard events. Moving towards a risk-based approach to land-use planning involves changes in planning and public communication practice for local government agencies. However, talking to people about how decisions made in the present may increase risk in the future is notoriously hard and requires carefully crafted public discussion. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper explores the case of a local government planning agency (the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC)) who adopted a risk-based approach to the development of their regional policy statement (RPS). The BOPRC designed an innovative approach to talking to their communities about future land use and acceptable risk based on a framework and toolkit of resources (the RBPA – risk-based planning approach).

The process addressed several common challenges of risk engagement for land-use planning as it: integrated input from policy and planning professionals, technical experts and community development specialists across local government organisations; used locally relevant community sessions that developed participants’ understanding of risk; linked ideas about risk tolerance to potential policy implications for local government; and built capacity amongst participants for judgment about risk acceptability and options for safeguard.

The process met public engagement planning criteria for robustness, i.e., valid process design and interpretation of feedback, and transparent integration into the final decisions. It enabled public views on natural hazards to be evaluated alongside technical input and incorporated into final decisions on thresholds for acceptable and unacceptable risk.

The approach taken has made significant contribution to risk engagement and land-use planning practice in New Zealand. In 2017, the BOPRC risk-based approach to their RPS received a national award from the New Zealand Planning Institute for contribution to advancing best practice. In 2018, it received further recognition through the Commonwealth Association of Planners Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Commonwealth.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between consumer risk perceptions and behaviour when information about food risks is framed in a positive or negative way.

Using food consumption scenarios in an on-line experiment consumers perceived risk and risk tolerance is examined when messages are framed in three different news-type stories.

As anticipated, message framing emerged as a significant predictor of perceived risk and the higher an individual’s self-reported tolerance of risk, the more risk they were willing to accept.

The use of hypothetical scenarios and relatively small convenience sample size could be improved by further research.

Through simple adjustments to wording, food crises of confidence may be reduced and the implications for communication management strategies are discussed.

Originality stems from being one of the first papers to use Framing and Prospect Theory in a food crisis situation, in which both risk and framing are operationalised in different ways and the risk was not specified by the researcher. Also, unlike previous research identical numerical facts were framed in a positive, negative or neutral light by changing the wording.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a method to predict the multi-failure risk of aero engine in service and to evaluate the effectiveness of different corrective actions.

The classification of failure risk level, the determination of hazard ratio and the calculation of risk factor and the risk per flight have been proposed. The multi-failure risk assessment process of aero engine has been established to predict the occurrence of failure event and assess the failure risk level. According to the history aero engine failure data, the multi-failure risk, i.e., overheat, blade wounding, pump failure, blade crack, pipe crack and combustor crack, has been predicted considering with and without corrective action. Two corrective actions, i.e., reduce the maintenance interval and redesign the failure components, were adopted to analyze the decreasing of risk level.

The multi-failure risk of aero engine with or without corrective action can be determined using the present method. The risk level of combustor crack decreases from high-risk level of 1.18×1e−9 without corrective action to acceptable risk level of 0.954×1e−9 by decreasing the maintenance interval from 1,000 to 800 h, or to 0.912×1e−9 using the redesign combustor.

It should be noted that probability of detection during maintenance actions has not been considered in the present analysis, which would affect the failure risk level of aero engine in service.

The method in the present analysis can be adapted to other types of failure modes which may cause significant safety or environment hazards, and used to determine the maintenance interval or choose appropriate corrective action to reduce the multi-failure risk level of aero engine.

The maintenance interval or appropriate corrective action can be determined using the present method to reduce the multi-failure risk level of aero engine.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a method to formalize information security control descriptions and a decision support system increasing the automation level and, therefore, the cost efficiency of the information security compliance checking process. The authors advanced the state-of-the-art by developing and applying the method to ISO 27002 information security controls and by developing a semantic decision support system.

The research has been conducted under design science principles. The formalized information security controls were used in a compliance/risk management decision support system which has been evaluated with experts and end-users in real-world environments.

There are different ways of obtaining compliance to information security standards. For example, by implementing countermeasures of different quality depending on the protection needs of the organization. The authors developed decision support mechanisms which use the formal control descriptions as input to support the decision-maker at identifying the most appropriate countermeasure strategy based on cost and risk reduction potential.

Formalizing and mapping the ISO 27002 controls to the security ontology enabled the authors to automatically determine the compliance status and organization-wide risk-level based on the formal control descriptions and the modelled environment, including organizational structures, IT infrastructure, available countermeasures, etc. Furthermore, it allowed them to automatically determine which countermeasures are missing to ensure compliance and to decrease the risk to an acceptable level.

Modern emergency management policy is built around the concepts of shared responsibility and the development of resilient communities. Drawing on the Australian context, this chapter argues that giving effect to these policy directions will require negotiation between stakeholders and an inevitable trade in values, interests, and resources. The chapter identifies an apparent contradiction at the heart of modern disaster management: that improvements in establishing professional emergency and risk management services may have reduced the capacity of individuals and local communities to take responsibility for disaster preparation and response.

There has been increased interest in application of knowledge management (KM) in managerial issues as a way of demonstrating the field's value. There has also been an increasing focus on risk management (RM) in response to growing organisational awareness of corporate and social responsibilities. This paper seeks to contribute to the emergence of a new field of research – referred to as knowledge risk management (KRM), which applies KM tools and techniques to the management of organisational risk.

The approach takes the form of building on an empirical study of the Australian Department of Defence using case study methods.

The paper examines how conventional approaches to risk management based on decision tree methods are ineffective, and proposes and tests an alternative KRM model.

A limitation is that the paper is based on a single case study.

The model provides managers with a way to differentiate amongst risks and prioritise for action. Its main value is to reduce the cognitive bias inherent in traditional decision methods for risk assessment. The KRM model improves the accuracy of risk assessment by reducing subjectivity caused by cognitive bias.

The purpose of this paper is to present issues and challenges of scheduled maintenance task development within the maintenance review board (MRB) process, and to find potential areas of improvement in the application of the MSG‐3 methodology for aircraft systems.

The issues and challenges as well as potential areas of improvement have been identified through a constructive review that consists of two parts. The first part is a benchmarking between the Maintenance Steering Group (MSG‐3) methodology and other established and documented versions of reliability‐centred maintenance (RCM). This benchmarking focuses on the MSG‐3 methodology and compares it with some RCM standards to identify differences and thereby find ways to facilitate the application of MSG‐3. The second part includes a discussion about methodologies and tools that can support different steps of the MSG‐3 methodology within the framework of the MRB process.

The MSG‐3 methodology is closely related to the RCM methodology, in which the anticipated consequences of failure are considered for risk evaluation. However, MSG‐3 considers neither environmental effects of failures nor operational consequences of hidden failures. Furthermore, in MSG‐3, the operational check (failure‐finding inspection) is given priority before all other tasks, whereas in RCM it is considered as a default action, where there is no other applicable and effective option. While RCM allows cost‐effectiveness analysis for all failures that have no safety consequences, MSG‐3 just allows it for failures with economic consequences. A maintenance program that is established through the MRB process fulfils the requirements of continuous airworthiness, but there is no foundation to claim that it is the optimal or the most effective program from an operator's point‐of‐view. The major challenge when striving to achieve a more effective maintenance program within the MRB process is to acquire supporting methodologies and tools for adequate risk analysis, for optimal interval assignments, and for selection of the most effective maintenance task.

The paper presents a critical review of existing aircraft scheduled maintenance program development methodologies, and demonstrates the differences between MSG‐3 and other RCM methodologies.

The Public Sector is usually assumed to have a risk avoidance culture, with a reactive rather than proactive approach towards the management. However, an improved holistic approach seems to be required, especially when considering the complexity and size of the Public Sector, and the challenges it faces to connect the services, clients and the different levels of governance.

Within this chapter, the authors lay out a maturity level evaluation of Governance, Risk Management and Compliance (GRC) within the Maltese Public Sector. Through documentation analysis of the available literature on the subject, the authors determine the principal themes required to develop an effective GRC practice across the Public Sector. The authors then design statements based on the identified GRC themes and administer it using an online survey tool to Public employees across different Ministries, Departments, Agencies and Entities, in order to obtain their perception. This is in order to determine gaps, weaknesses or limiting factors towards the implementation of an effective GRC.

The results show that, although, there is a substantial percentage of scepticism and few disagreements towards some of the statements, especially those which related to Risk Management (RM) and Internal Auditing (IA), the majority of Public Sector bodies do in fact show high standards of GRC practices integrated and present in their day-to-day operations and internal environment, showing that there is a well-developed Governance, Compliance and Control structure and Internal Audit function across the Sector.

However, the perception of participants is that the RM function is the least developed area. IA needs some improvement especially where trust on advice is involved.

The Reprocessing Engineering Division of British Nuclear Fuels undertakes the design of nuclear chemical plants for construction and subsequent operation at the Sellafield Works of the Reprocessing Operations Division. Plant construction cannot take place until it has been demonstrated that the chosen design will allow the plant to operate in an adequately safe manner, corresponding to an extremely low level of risk. Risk, or the cumulative frequency and consequences of all potential hazards, is evaluated by means of probabilistic risk assessments (PRA).