Ranasinghe, M and Russell, A D (1993) Elicitation of subjective probabilities for economic risk analysis: An investigation. Construction Management and Economics, 11(5), pp. 326-340. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper investigates three major issues regarding the elicitation of expert knowledge for economic risk analysis: (1) recognition of some of the implicit assumptions and beliefs; (2) development of an approach to elicit expert knowledge as accurate, calibrated and coherent subjective probabilities; and (3) a study to explore human ability to predict future events and the validity of the implicit assumptions and beliefs in the context of the expert judgements. The proposed elicitation approach combines the theoretical requirements for valid subjective probabilities with a practical process. The recognition that some of the implicit assumptions and beliefs in engineering risk analysis should be explored when dealing with the human ability to predict future events, and the inherent difficulties in developing experiments and methods to test such beliefs are some of the benefits of the study. Directions for future work are suggested.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decomposition; economic risk analysis; elicitation technique; questionnaire; subjective probabilities |
| Index terms: | investigation, validity, risk analysis, questionnaire, expert judgement, experiment |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, environmental hazards |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Risk Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here