| dc.description.abstract | Decision analysis has a central role in decision-making as it aids the decision-maker in identifying the most suitable alternative, matching the decision-makers preferences.
Several of the tools used today focus to some degree on particular outcomes and do consequently provide the decision maker with a one-dimensional answer. Statutory requirements state that the decision analysis performed should take multiple stakeholders preferences and knowledge into account when evaluating Risk-Reducing Measures. From this, it is assumed that a more balanced perspective that goes beyond expected values is required to aid decision-making.
The use of modifications to retain performance on existing safety barriers and systems is presented, as modifications often are performed to compensate for unreliability and loss of quality affected by; human errors, accidents, unreliability and/or changes in statutory requirements.
With the starting point of the thesis is to make a tool for decision support in the selection of modification proposals, there has been performed a minor review of commonly used methods for evaluations in decision-making. The multi-attribute theory appears to be a reasonable approach, which may be used when there is limited knowledge regarding future consequences.
As a result, the thesis has suggested a framework for implementation of a multi-attribute analysis that reflects different stakeholders concerns based on strategies and philosophies generated by an E&P company. A relative weighting index has been suggested to reflect various stakeholders concerns. It has also been performed a case study on previous modification proposals to see how the framework aligns in practice, and various stakeholders preferences affect the prioritisation.
A suggestion on how Multi-attribute theory can be implemented into a decision-making process, to reflect possible lack of knowledge and creation of alternatives to enlighten key points of disagreement are further presented. | nb_NO |
