Affiliation:
1. Shandong Vocational University of Foreign Affairs, China
Abstract
Risk assessors could adopt qualitative, semi-quantitative, or quantitative approaches to analyze various risks; the combination of these approaches alleviates the shortcomings of risk assessment techniques, namely uncertainty, knowledge dimension, and time dynamics when techniques are used alone. The knowledge dimension plays a pivotal role in these shortcomings, as knowledge reduces uncertainty (United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], n.d.-a) and the timely knowledge update of global trends and emerging risks is expected to resolve the issue of time dynamics (another cause of uncertainty) by reassessing risks and characterizing risk data over a time interval (Wassénius & Crona, 2022). However, substantial research and development are required to generate adequate modeling and analytical methods to deal with different and complex systems. Based on the literature review and industry best practices, the study develops a risk assessment knowledge management system framework that focuses on the root of the shortcomings of risk assessment techniques, namely the knowledge dimension; this strategy is efficient and sustainable by indirectly addressing the unresolved issues of uncertainty and time dynamics through the knowledge dimension. The conceptual framework minimizes the uncertainty (the root of risk) in the decision-making process of selecting the appropriate risk assessment tools and effectively implementing them.
Reference81 articles.
1. Acar, H. C., Can, G., Karaali, R., Börekçi, Ş., Balkan, İ. İ., Gemicioğlu, B., Konukoğlu, D., Erginöz, E., Erdoğan, M. S., & Tabak, F. (2021). An easy-to-use nomogram for predicting in-hospital mortality risk in COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study in a university hospital. BMC Infectious Diseases, 21, Article 148. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-05845-x
2. Akhavan, P., Shahabipour, A., & Hosnavi, R. (2018). A model for assessment of uncertainty in tacit knowledge acquisition. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(2), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2017-0242
3. Ali, B. M., Andersson, M. G., van den Borne, B. H. P., Focker, M., & van der Fels-Klerx, H. J. (2022). Multi-criteria decision analysis in food safety risk management: The case of dioxins in Baltic fish. Foods, 11(7), Article 1059. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11071059
4. Alrazig, M. A., & Ali, D. K. M. (2020). Approaches for risk assessment method selection criteria. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences, 74(2), 242–253. Retrieved from https://asrjetsjournal.org/index.php/American_Scientific_Journal/article/view/6441
5. American Bureau of Shipping. (2000). Guidance notes on risk assessment: Applications for the marine and offshore oil and gas industries.