Risk analysis is important in system design because of its essential role in evaluating functional reliability and mitigating system failures. In this work, we aim at expanding existing risk modeling methods to collaborative system designs: specifically, to facilitate resource allocation among distributed stakeholders. Because of different perspectives and limited local information, inconsistent and/or incoherent risk assessments (such as different probability and confusing consequence evaluations) may occur among stakeholders, who are responsible for same or different risk components of a system. The discrepancies can become potential barriers in achieving consensus or acceptable disagreement for distributed resource allocation. Built upon our previous work, a risk-based distributed resource allocation methodology (R-DRAM) is developed to help a system manager allocate limited resources among collaborating stakeholders based on a cost-benefit measure of risk. Besides probability and consequence, two additional risk aspects, tolerance and hierarchy, are considered for system risk modeling in a collaborative/distributed environment. Given a total amount of resources to be allocated, the four risk aspects are combined to form the cost-benefit measure in a multiobjective optimization framework for achieving a desired risk reduction of a targeted system. An example is used to demonstrate the implementation process of the methodology. The preliminary investigation shows promise of the R-DRAM as a systematic and quantifiable approach in facilitating distributed resource allocation for collaborative system design.

1.
Tumer
,
I. Y.
,
Barrientos
,
F. A.
, and
Mehr
,
A. F.
, 2005, “
Towards Risk Based Design (RBD) of Space Exploration Missions: A Review of RBD Practice and Research Trends at NASA
,”
Proceedings of the 2005 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, DETC2005-85100
,
Long Beach, CA
.
2.
Haimes
,
Y. Y.
, 1998,
Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management
,
Wiley
,
New York
.
3.
Melchers
,
R. E.
, and
Stewart
,
M. G.
, 1995,
Integrated Risk Assessment
,
A. A. Balkema
,
Brookfield
.
4.
Kumamoto
,
H.
, and
Henley
,
E. J.
, 1996,
Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Management for Engineering and Science
,
IEEE
,
New York
.
5.
Bedford
,
T.
, and
Cooke
,
R.
, 2001,
Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Foundations and Methods
,
Cambridge University Press
,
Boston
.
6.
Qiu
,
Y. M.
,
Ge
,
P.
, and
Yim
,
S. C.
, 2006, “
A Risk-Based Approach to Support Global Coordination in Distributed Environment
,”
Proceeding of the 2006 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, DETC2006-99158
,
Pittsburgh, PA
.
7.
Qiu
,
Y. M.
,
Ge
,
P.
, and
Yim
,
S. C.
, 2006, “
Enabling Local Risk Assessment to Support Global Collaboration in Distributed Environment
,”
Proceeding of the 2006 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, DETC2006-99159
,
Pittsburgh, PA
.
8.
Sutton
,
I. S.
, 1992,
Process Reliability and Risk Management
,
1st ed.
Van Nostrand Reinhold
,
New York
.
9.
Suokas
,
J.
, and
Rouhiainen
,
V.
, 1993,
Quality Management of Safety and Risk Analysis
,
Elsevier Science
,
New York
.
10.
Andrews
,
J. D.
, and
Moss
,
T. R.
, 1993,
Reliability and Risk Assessment
,
1st ed.
,
Longman Group
,
London, UK
.
11.
Bohm
,
M.
,
Stone
,
R.
, and
Szykman
,
S.
, 2005, “
Enhancing Virtual Product Representations for Advanced Design Repository Systems
,”
ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng.
1530-9827,
5
(
4
), pp.
360
372
.
12.
Stone
,
R.
, and
Tumer
,
I.
, 2005, “
Function Based Risk Assessment: Mapping Function to Likelihood
,”
Proceeding of the 2005 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, DETC2005-85053
,
Long Beach, CA
.
13.
Tumer
,
I.
, and
Stone
,
R.
, 2003, “
Mapping Function to Failure during High-Risk Component Development
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
0934-9839,
14
, pp.
25
33
.
14.
Mehr
,
A. F.
, and
Tumer
,
I. Y.
, 2005, “
A New Approach to Probabilistic Risk Analysis in Concurrent and Distributed Design of Aerospace Systems
,”
Proceeding of the 2005 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, DETC2005-35056
,
Long Beach, CA
.
15.
Lough
,
K. G.
,
Stone
,
R. B.
, and
Tumer
,
I.
, 2006, “
The Risk in Early Design (RED) Method: Likelihood and Consequence Formulations
,”
Proceeding of the 2006 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, DETC2006-99375
,
Pittsburgh, PA
.
16.
Mehr
,
A. F.
, and
Tumer
,
I.
, 2006, “
Risk-based Decision Making for Managing Resources during the Design of Complex Space Exploration Systems
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
1050-0472,
128
, pp.
1014
1022
.
17.
Hoyle
,
C.
,
Mehr
,
A. F.
,
Tumer
,
I. Y.
, and
Chen
,
W.
, 2007, “
Cost Benefit Quantification of ISHM in Aerospace Systems
,”
Proceeding of the 2007 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, DETC2007-35412
,
Las Vegas, NV
.
18.
Bendixen
,
L. M.
, 1987, “
Risk Acceptability Criteria
,”
ASCE Spring Convention & Energy Conference
.
19.
Rockafellar
,
R. T.
, and
Uryasev
,
S.
, 2000, “
Optimization of Conditional Value-at-Risk
,”
J. Risk
,
2
(
3
), pp.
21
42
.
20.
Beder
,
T. S.
, 1995, “
VAR: Seductive but Dangerous
,”
Financ. Anal. J.
0015-198X,
51
(
5
), pp.
12
24
.
21.
Taylor
,
B. N.
, and
Kuyatt
,
C. E.
, 1994, Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results, NIST Technical Note 1297, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
You do not currently have access to this content.