Risk-Based Decision Support Model for Offshore Installations

Gencer Erdogan 1 , Atle Refsdal 1 , Bjørn Nygård 2 , Ole Petter Rosland 2  and Bernt Kvam Randeberg 3
  • 1 SINTEF Digital,, Oslo, Norway
  • 2 Statoil ASA,, Stavanger, Norway
  • 3 Oilfield Technology Group,, Sandnes, Norway


Background: During major maintenance projects on offshore installations, flotels are often used to accommodate the personnel. A gangway connects the flotel to the installation. If the offshore conditions are unfavorable, the responsible operatives need to decide whether to lift (disconnect) the gangway from the installation. If this is not done, there is a risk that an uncontrolled autolift (disconnection) occurs, causing harm to personnel and equipment. Objectives: We present a decision support model, developed using the DEXi tool for multi-criteria decision making, which produces advice on whether to disconnect/connect the gangway from/to the installation. Moreover, we report on our development method and experiences from the process, including the efforts invested. An evaluation of the resulting model is also offered, primarily based on feedback from a small group of offshore operatives and domain experts representing the end user target group. Methods/Approach: The decision support model was developed systematically in four steps: establish context, develop the model, tune the model, and collect feedback on the model. Results: The results indicate that the decision support model provides advice that corresponds with expert expectations, captures all aspects that are important for the assessment, is comprehensible to domain experts, and that the expected benefit justifies the effort for developing the model. Conclusions: We find the results promising, and believe that the approach can be fruitful in a wider range of risk-based decision support scenarios. Moreover, this paper can help other decision support developers decide whether a similar approach can suit them

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Bohanec, M. (2015), "DEXi: Program for Multi-Attribute Decision Making. User's Manual version 5.00 IJS DP-11897", available at: http://kt.ijs.si/MarkoBohanec/DEXi/html/DEXiDoc.htm (14 November 2017).

  • 2. Bohanec, M. (2017), "DEXi: A Program for Multi-Attribute Decision Making", available at: http://kt.ijs.si/MarkoBohanec/dexi.html (14 November 2017).

  • 3. Bohanec, M., Delibasic, B. (2015), "Data-Mining and Expert Models for Predicting Injury Risk in Ski Resorts", in Delibasic, B. et al. (Eds.), Decision Support Systems V - Big Data Analytics for Decision Making, Springer, Cham, pp. 46-60.

  • 4. Bohanec, M., Znidarsic, M., Rajkovic, V., Bratko, I., Zupan, B. (2013), "DEX Methodology: Three Decades of Qualitative Multi-Attribute Modeling", Informatica, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 49-54.

  • 5. Chen, Y., Okudan, G. E., Riley, D. R. (2010), "Decision support for construction method selection in concrete buildings: Prefabrication adoption and optimization", Automation in Construction, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 665-675.

  • 6. Erdogan, G., Refsdal, A. (2018), "A Method for Developing Qualitative Security Risk Assessment Algorithms", in Cuppens, N. et al. (Eds.), Risks and Security of Internet and Systems, Springer, Cham, pp. 244-259.

  • 7. Fishburn, P. C. (1967), "Conjoint measurement in utility theory with incomplete product sets", Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 104-119.

  • 8. Fishburn, P. C., Keeney, R. L. (1974), "Seven independence concepts and continuous multiattribute utility functions", Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 294-327.

  • 9. Keeney, R. L. (1977), "The art of assessing multiattribute utility functions", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 267-310.

  • 10. Konidari, P., Mavrakis, D. (2007), "A multi-criteria evaluation method for climate change mitigation policy instruments", Energy Policy, Vol. 35, No. 12, pp. 6235-6257.

  • 11. Lund, M. S., Solhaug, B., Stølen, K. (2011), “Model-Driven Risk Analysis: The CORAS Approach”, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

  • 12. Omercevic, D., Zupancic, M., Bohanec, M., Kastelic, T. (2008), "Intelligent response to highway traffic situations and road incidents", in Transport Research Arena Europe 2008, Ljubljana, pp. 21-24.

  • 13. Refsdal, A., Erdogan, G. (2017), "D3.4 Cyber risk modelling language and guidelines", available at: https://www.cyberwiser.eu/ (14 November 2017).

  • 14. Saaty, T. L. (1980), “The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation”, McGraw-Hill, New York.

  • 15. Saaty, T. L. (2008), "Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process", International Journal of Services Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 83-98.

  • 16. Velasquez, M., Hester, P. T. (2013), "An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods", International Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 56-66.

  • 17. WISER (2017), "Wide-Impact cyber SEcurity Risk framework", available at: https://www.cyberwiser.eu/ (14 November 2017).


Journal + Issues