Risk Management

Risks are present in almost everything we touch as civil engineers. Civil Engineers implicitly manage risk through design and building codes and standards and explicitly through design choices and trade-offs. Are we doing enough to make the profession understand its role as a risk manager and what more needs to be done?

Thanks Mitch!

Q. "Are we doing enough to make the profession understand its role as a risk manager and what more needs to be done?"

So, seems to me that at the "100,00 foot level" many would unequivocally answer "YES!"

However, when we breakdown the accountability for risk,

we go right into the C-suite of public and private orgs.

Experience and research identify the main "Restraining  Forces" to

such can best be captured by the expression

                   "Follow The Money."

Cheers,

Bill

p.s. An example of the above remark includes "Pay to play."

When confronted with the need for change or prove there is no need,

Most immediately begin working on the proof.

Risks are present in almost everything we touch as civil engineers. Civil Engineers implicitly manage risk through design and building codes and standards and explicitly through design choices and trade-offs. Are we doing enough to make the profession understand its role as a risk manager and what more needs to be done?

Risks are present in almost everything we touch as civil engineers. Civil Engineers implicitly manage risk through design and building codes and standards and explicitly through design choices and trade-offs. Are we doing enough to make the profession understand its role as a risk manager and what more needs to be done?

My encounters with project and regulatory engineers suggests widespread ignorance about risk management. They know the words, but not the principles and practices.

For example, I attended a public agency workshop on risk in which the organizers defined risk incorrectly as the "probability of adverse event occurrence," instead of the correct engineering definition that includes two distinct components in risk – the probability of an event and the magnitude of consequences from that event. Even ASCE Policy Statement 437 on Risk Management is fuzzy on the definition. 

The U.S. National Research Council and International Standards Organization provide engineering practice guidance on risk and risk management consistent with the correct definition.

What more can be done? We can review ASCE's Continuing Education offerings and either create or promote those that teach true risk management. We can add a concise definition to Policy 437. We can encourage an article in ASCE magazine aimed at educating a general engineering audience. 

Thanks for raising the issue, Mitch. It's important.

Bill Mc

Risks are present in almost everything we touch as civil engineers. Civil Engineers implicitly manage risk through design and building codes and standards and explicitly through design choices and trade-offs. Are we doing enough to make the profession understand its role as a risk manager and what more needs to be done?

It is good that we're thinking about it. Here is what I like to add.

As I see it, uncertainty, probability or likelihood, and risk assessment and management – all belong to the Risk Envelope – Uncertainty and Risk.

There are at least two NAP publications I came across: The 2013 U.S EPA Env Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty # 12568; and The 2024 Advancing Risk Communication . . . Atypical Climate Events # 27933, that provide some great directions to Risk Assessment and Management.

The method of risk assessment, obtained as the product of the probability of occurrence of an event and the damage consequences of that event, is rather well-established. Estimating the probable but realistic damages and assigning financial values to them – have not been something easy to do (during the planning and design phases of a project) in the past. It is only the recent advances of GIS, mapping and remote sensing technologies – that have made the efforts easier, for example to estimate flood and storm surge damages.

There is also an easy assessment approach, called the method of Encounter Probability. It relates the return period (in years) of an event to the design life of a project. For example, the likelihood or probability that a 100-year event will be encountered during the 30-year design life is 26%.

Despite its simplicity, encounter probability reinforces the common notion of the design philosophy that – the longer the lifetime of a project – the stronger its components must be to withstand the long return-period events. It's a risk minimization step.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

My encounters with project and regulatory engineers suggests widespread ignorance about risk management. They know the words, but not the principles and practices.

For example, I attended a public agency workshop on risk in which the organizers defined risk incorrectly as the "probability of adverse event occurrence," instead of the correct engineering definition that includes two distinct components in risk – the probability of an event and the magnitude of consequences from that event. Even ASCE Policy Statement 437 on Risk Management is fuzzy on the definition. 

The U.S. National Research Council and International Standards Organization provide engineering practice guidance on risk and risk management consistent with the correct definition.

What more can be done? We can review ASCE's Continuing Education offerings and either create or promote those that teach true risk management. We can add a concise definition to Policy 437. We can encourage an article in ASCE magazine aimed at educating a general engineering audience. 

Thanks for raising the issue, Mitch. It's important.

Bill Mc

Risks are present in almost everything we touch as civil engineers. Civil Engineers implicitly manage risk through design and building codes and standards and explicitly through design choices and trade-offs. Are we doing enough to make the profession understand its role as a risk manager and what more needs to be done?

Thanks for the references.

We need to be careful these days about relying on 100 year flood categories.  New weather prediction methods, which don't only rely on the past 50 years of weather and precip, show that what used to be called 1,000 year floods may now occur every 70 years.  So no longer do "1,000" year floods occur once in many generations

It is good that we're thinking about it. Here is what I like to add.

As I see it, uncertainty, probability or likelihood, and risk assessment and management – all belong to the Risk Envelope – Uncertainty and Risk.

There are at least two NAP publications I came across: The 2013 U.S EPA Env Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty # 12568; and The 2024 Advancing Risk Communication . . . Atypical Climate Events # 27933, that provide some great directions to Risk Assessment and Management.

The method of risk assessment, obtained as the product of the probability of occurrence of an event and the damage consequences of that event, is rather well-established. Estimating the probable but realistic damages and assigning financial values to them – have not been something easy to do (during the planning and design phases of a project) in the past. It is only the recent advances of GIS, mapping and remote sensing technologies – that have made the efforts easier, for example to estimate flood and storm surge damages.

There is also an easy assessment approach, called the method of Encounter Probability. It relates the return period (in years) of an event to the design life of a project. For example, the likelihood or probability that a 100-year event will be encountered during the 30-year design life is 26%.

Despite its simplicity, encounter probability reinforces the common notion of the design philosophy that – the longer the lifetime of a project – the stronger its components must be to withstand the long return-period events. It's a risk minimization step.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

My encounters with project and regulatory engineers suggests widespread ignorance about risk management. They know the words, but not the principles and practices.

For example, I attended a public agency workshop on risk in which the organizers defined risk incorrectly as the "probability of adverse event occurrence," instead of the correct engineering definition that includes two distinct components in risk – the probability of an event and the magnitude of consequences from that event. Even ASCE Policy Statement 437 on Risk Management is fuzzy on the definition. 

The U.S. National Research Council and International Standards Organization provide engineering practice guidance on risk and risk management consistent with the correct definition.

What more can be done? We can review ASCE's Continuing Education offerings and either create or promote those that teach true risk management. We can add a concise definition to Policy 437. We can encourage an article in ASCE magazine aimed at educating a general engineering audience. 

Thanks for raising the issue, Mitch. It's important.

Bill Mc

Risks are present in almost everything we touch as civil engineers. Civil Engineers implicitly manage risk through design and building codes and standards and explicitly through design choices and trade-offs. Are we doing enough to make the profession understand its role as a risk manager and what more needs to be done?

Thanks for the references.

We need to be careful these days about relying on 100 year flood categories.  New weather prediction methods, which don't only rely on the past 50 years of weather and precip, show that what used to be called 1,000 year floods may now occur every 70 years.  So no longer do "1,000" year floods occur once in many generations

It is good that we're thinking about it. Here is what I like to add.

As I see it, uncertainty, probability or likelihood, and risk assessment and management – all belong to the Risk Envelope – Uncertainty and Risk.

There are at least two NAP publications I came across: The 2013 U.S EPA Env Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty # 12568; and The 2024 Advancing Risk Communication . . . Atypical Climate Events # 27933, that provide some great directions to Risk Assessment and Management.

The method of risk assessment, obtained as the product of the probability of occurrence of an event and the damage consequences of that event, is rather well-established. Estimating the probable but realistic damages and assigning financial values to them – have not been something easy to do (during the planning and design phases of a project) in the past. It is only the recent advances of GIS, mapping and remote sensing technologies – that have made the efforts easier, for example to estimate flood and storm surge damages.

There is also an easy assessment approach, called the method of Encounter Probability. It relates the return period (in years) of an event to the design life of a project. For example, the likelihood or probability that a 100-year event will be encountered during the 30-year design life is 26%.

Despite its simplicity, encounter probability reinforces the common notion of the design philosophy that – the longer the lifetime of a project – the stronger its components must be to withstand the long return-period events. It's a risk minimization step.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

My encounters with project and regulatory engineers suggests widespread ignorance about risk management. They know the words, but not the principles and practices.

For example, I attended a public agency workshop on risk in which the organizers defined risk incorrectly as the "probability of adverse event occurrence," instead of the correct engineering definition that includes two distinct components in risk – the probability of an event and the magnitude of consequences from that event. Even ASCE Policy Statement 437 on Risk Management is fuzzy on the definition. 

The U.S. National Research Council and International Standards Organization provide engineering practice guidance on risk and risk management consistent with the correct definition.

What more can be done? We can review ASCE's Continuing Education offerings and either create or promote those that teach true risk management. We can add a concise definition to Policy 437. We can encourage an article in ASCE magazine aimed at educating a general engineering audience. 

Thanks for raising the issue, Mitch. It's important.

Bill Mc

Risks are present in almost everything we touch as civil engineers. Civil Engineers implicitly manage risk through design and building codes and standards and explicitly through design choices and trade-offs. Are we doing enough to make the profession understand its role as a risk manager and what more needs to be done?

Thanks for the references.

We need to be careful these days about relying on 100 year flood categories.  New weather prediction methods, which don't only rely on the past 50 years of weather and precip, show that what used to be called 1,000 year floods may now occur every 70 years.  So no longer do "1,000" year floods occur once in many generations

It is good that we're thinking about it. Here is what I like to add.

As I see it, uncertainty, probability or likelihood, and risk assessment and management – all belong to the Risk Envelope – Uncertainty and Risk.

There are at least two NAP publications I came across: The 2013 U.S EPA Env Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty # 12568; and The 2024 Advancing Risk Communication . . . Atypical Climate Events # 27933, that provide some great directions to Risk Assessment and Management.

The method of risk assessment, obtained as the product of the probability of occurrence of an event and the damage consequences of that event, is rather well-established. Estimating the probable but realistic damages and assigning financial values to them – have not been something easy to do (during the planning and design phases of a project) in the past. It is only the recent advances of GIS, mapping and remote sensing technologies – that have made the efforts easier, for example to estimate flood and storm surge damages.

There is also an easy assessment approach, called the method of Encounter Probability. It relates the return period (in years) of an event to the design life of a project. For example, the likelihood or probability that a 100-year event will be encountered during the 30-year design life is 26%.

Despite its simplicity, encounter probability reinforces the common notion of the design philosophy that – the longer the lifetime of a project – the stronger its components must be to withstand the long return-period events. It's a risk minimization step.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

My encounters with project and regulatory engineers suggests widespread ignorance about risk management. They know the words, but not the principles and practices.

For example, I attended a public agency workshop on risk in which the organizers defined risk incorrectly as the "probability of adverse event occurrence," instead of the correct engineering definition that includes two distinct components in risk – the probability of an event and the magnitude of consequences from that event. Even ASCE Policy Statement 437 on Risk Management is fuzzy on the definition. 

The U.S. National Research Council and International Standards Organization provide engineering practice guidance on risk and risk management consistent with the correct definition.

What more can be done? We can review ASCE's Continuing Education offerings and either create or promote those that teach true risk management. We can add a concise definition to Policy 437. We can encourage an article in ASCE magazine aimed at educating a general engineering audience. 

Thanks for raising the issue, Mitch. It's important.

Bill Mc

Risks are present in almost everything we touch as civil engineers. Civil Engineers implicitly manage risk through design and building codes and standards and explicitly through design choices and trade-offs. Are we doing enough to make the profession understand its role as a risk manager and what more needs to be done?

I will also quickly add that there is a professional society, the Society for Risk Analysis

This society, of which I am also a fellow, has extensive coverage of engineering and infrastructure risk issues, and has developed a glossary of terms which are quite useful and should be consulted.  ASCE needs to take more cognizance of what has been done in the risk field than they have (nor merely ISO, which has its own set of problems).

Thanks for the references.

We need to be careful these days about relying on 100 year flood categories.  New weather prediction methods, which don't only rely on the past 50 years of weather and precip, show that what used to be called 1,000 year floods may now occur every 70 years.  So no longer do "1,000" year floods occur once in many generations

It is good that we're thinking about it. Here is what I like to add.

As I see it, uncertainty, probability or likelihood, and risk assessment and management – all belong to the Risk Envelope – Uncertainty and Risk.

There are at least two NAP publications I came across: The 2013 U.S EPA Env Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty # 12568; and The 2024 Advancing Risk Communication . . . Atypical Climate Events # 27933, that provide some great directions to Risk Assessment and Management.

The method of risk assessment, obtained as the product of the probability of occurrence of an event and the damage consequences of that event, is rather well-established. Estimating the probable but realistic damages and assigning financial values to them – have not been something easy to do (during the planning and design phases of a project) in the past. It is only the recent advances of GIS, mapping and remote sensing technologies – that have made the efforts easier, for example to estimate flood and storm surge damages.

There is also an easy assessment approach, called the method of Encounter Probability. It relates the return period (in years) of an event to the design life of a project. For example, the likelihood or probability that a 100-year event will be encountered during the 30-year design life is 26%.

Despite its simplicity, encounter probability reinforces the common notion of the design philosophy that – the longer the lifetime of a project – the stronger its components must be to withstand the long return-period events. It's a risk minimization step.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

My encounters with project and regulatory engineers suggests widespread ignorance about risk management. They know the words, but not the principles and practices.

For example, I attended a public agency workshop on risk in which the organizers defined risk incorrectly as the "probability of adverse event occurrence," instead of the correct engineering definition that includes two distinct components in risk – the probability of an event and the magnitude of consequences from that event. Even ASCE Policy Statement 437 on Risk Management is fuzzy on the definition. 

The U.S. National Research Council and International Standards Organization provide engineering practice guidance on risk and risk management consistent with the correct definition.

What more can be done? We can review ASCE's Continuing Education offerings and either create or promote those that teach true risk management. We can add a concise definition to Policy 437. We can encourage an article in ASCE magazine aimed at educating a general engineering audience. 

Thanks for raising the issue, Mitch. It's important.

Bill Mc

Risks are present in almost everything we touch as civil engineers. Civil Engineers implicitly manage risk through design and building codes and standards and explicitly through design choices and trade-offs. Are we doing enough to make the profession understand its role as a risk manager and what more needs to be done?

It is good that we're thinking about it. Here is what I like to add.

As I see it, uncertainty, probability or likelihood, and risk assessment and management – all belong to the Risk Envelope – Uncertainty and Risk.

There are at least two NAP publications I came across: The 2013 U.S EPA Env Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty # 12568; and The 2024 Advancing Risk Communication . . . Atypical Climate Events # 27933, that provide some great directions to Risk Assessment and Management.

The method of risk assessment, obtained as the product of the probability of occurrence of an event and the damage consequences of that event, is rather well-established. Estimating the probable but realistic damages and assigning financial values to them – have not been something easy to do (during the planning and design phases of a project) in the past. It is only the recent advances of GIS, mapping and remote sensing technologies – that have made the efforts easier, for example to estimate flood and storm surge damages.

There is also an easy assessment approach, called the method of Encounter Probability. It relates the return period (in years) of an event to the design life of a project. For example, the likelihood or probability that a 100-year event will be encountered during the 30-year design life is 26%.

Despite its simplicity, encounter probability reinforces the common notion of the design philosophy that – the longer the lifetime of a project – the stronger its components must be to withstand the long return-period events. It's a risk minimization step.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

My encounters with project and regulatory engineers suggests widespread ignorance about risk management. They know the words, but not the principles and practices.

For example, I attended a public agency workshop on risk in which the organizers defined risk incorrectly as the "probability of adverse event occurrence," instead of the correct engineering definition that includes two distinct components in risk – the probability of an event and the magnitude of consequences from that event. Even ASCE Policy Statement 437 on Risk Management is fuzzy on the definition. 

The U.S. National Research Council and International Standards Organization provide engineering practice guidance on risk and risk management consistent with the correct definition.

What more can be done? We can review ASCE's Continuing Education offerings and either create or promote those that teach true risk management. We can add a concise definition to Policy 437. We can encourage an article in ASCE magazine aimed at educating a general engineering audience. 

Thanks for raising the issue, Mitch. It's important.

Bill Mc

Risks are present in almost everything we touch as civil engineers. Civil Engineers implicitly manage risk through design and building codes and standards and explicitly through design choices and trade-offs. Are we doing enough to make the profession understand its role as a risk manager and what more needs to be done?

Your reply prompted me to do more searching, and I found this guidance from the (UK) Institution for Civil Engineers (ICE) on design risk management. I looked at the NAP document on environmental decision-making, but I think it's much too complicated for practical application. I like the ICE guidance for its simplicity. I think the civil engineering community would benefit from US-specific guidance along the lines of the ICE document. 

The ASCE has a committee on Risk Assessment and Management. It would be great to hear from the committee chairs on this topic and the possibility of creating US-specific guidance on risk assessment and management focused on practicing engineers.

It is good that we're thinking about it. Here is what I like to add.

As I see it, uncertainty, probability or likelihood, and risk assessment and management – all belong to the Risk Envelope – Uncertainty and Risk.

There are at least two NAP publications I came across: The 2013 U.S EPA Env Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty # 12568; and The 2024 Advancing Risk Communication . . . Atypical Climate Events # 27933, that provide some great directions to Risk Assessment and Management.

The method of risk assessment, obtained as the product of the probability of occurrence of an event and the damage consequences of that event, is rather well-established. Estimating the probable but realistic damages and assigning financial values to them – have not been something easy to do (during the planning and design phases of a project) in the past. It is only the recent advances of GIS, mapping and remote sensing technologies – that have made the efforts easier, for example to estimate flood and storm surge damages.

There is also an easy assessment approach, called the method of Encounter Probability. It relates the return period (in years) of an event to the design life of a project. For example, the likelihood or probability that a 100-year event will be encountered during the 30-year design life is 26%.

Despite its simplicity, encounter probability reinforces the common notion of the design philosophy that – the longer the lifetime of a project – the stronger its components must be to withstand the long return-period events. It's a risk minimization step.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

My encounters with project and regulatory engineers suggests widespread ignorance about risk management. They know the words, but not the principles and practices.

For example, I attended a public agency workshop on risk in which the organizers defined risk incorrectly as the "probability of adverse event occurrence," instead of the correct engineering definition that includes two distinct components in risk – the probability of an event and the magnitude of consequences from that event. Even ASCE Policy Statement 437 on Risk Management is fuzzy on the definition. 

The U.S. National Research Council and International Standards Organization provide engineering practice guidance on risk and risk management consistent with the correct definition.

What more can be done? We can review ASCE's Continuing Education offerings and either create or promote those that teach true risk management. We can add a concise definition to Policy 437. We can encourage an article in ASCE magazine aimed at educating a general engineering audience. 

Thanks for raising the issue, Mitch. It's important.

Bill Mc

Risks are present in almost everything we touch as civil engineers. Civil Engineers implicitly manage risk through design and building codes and standards and explicitly through design choices and trade-offs. Are we doing enough to make the profession understand its role as a risk manager and what more needs to be done?

Your reply prompted me to do more searching, and I found this guidance from the (UK) Institution for Civil Engineers (ICE) on design risk management. I looked at the NAP document on environmental decision-making, but I think it's much too complicated for practical application. I like the ICE guidance for its simplicity. I think the civil engineering community would benefit from US-specific guidance along the lines of the ICE document. 

The ASCE has a committee on Risk Assessment and Management. It would be great to hear from the committee chairs on this topic and the possibility of creating US-specific guidance on risk assessment and management focused on practicing engineers.

It is good that we're thinking about it. Here is what I like to add.

As I see it, uncertainty, probability or likelihood, and risk assessment and management – all belong to the Risk Envelope – Uncertainty and Risk.

There are at least two NAP publications I came across: The 2013 U.S EPA Env Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty # 12568; and The 2024 Advancing Risk Communication . . . Atypical Climate Events # 27933, that provide some great directions to Risk Assessment and Management.

The method of risk assessment, obtained as the product of the probability of occurrence of an event and the damage consequences of that event, is rather well-established. Estimating the probable but realistic damages and assigning financial values to them – have not been something easy to do (during the planning and design phases of a project) in the past. It is only the recent advances of GIS, mapping and remote sensing technologies – that have made the efforts easier, for example to estimate flood and storm surge damages.

There is also an easy assessment approach, called the method of Encounter Probability. It relates the return period (in years) of an event to the design life of a project. For example, the likelihood or probability that a 100-year event will be encountered during the 30-year design life is 26%.

Despite its simplicity, encounter probability reinforces the common notion of the design philosophy that – the longer the lifetime of a project – the stronger its components must be to withstand the long return-period events. It's a risk minimization step.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

My encounters with project and regulatory engineers suggests widespread ignorance about risk management. They know the words, but not the principles and practices.

For example, I attended a public agency workshop on risk in which the organizers defined risk incorrectly as the "probability of adverse event occurrence," instead of the correct engineering definition that includes two distinct components in risk – the probability of an event and the magnitude of consequences from that event. Even ASCE Policy Statement 437 on Risk Management is fuzzy on the definition. 

The U.S. National Research Council and International Standards Organization provide engineering practice guidance on risk and risk management consistent with the correct definition.

What more can be done? We can review ASCE's Continuing Education offerings and either create or promote those that teach true risk management. We can add a concise definition to Policy 437. We can encourage an article in ASCE magazine aimed at educating a general engineering audience. 

Thanks for raising the issue, Mitch. It's important.

Bill Mc

Risks are present in almost everything we touch as civil engineers. Civil Engineers implicitly manage risk through design and building codes and standards and explicitly through design choices and trade-offs. Are we doing enough to make the profession understand its role as a risk manager and what more needs to be done?

Friends: I started writing a draft message to "the" risk committee for group review and diverted to get a list of committees and chairs. This is a partial list of ASCE groups with "Risk" in their title:

• Construction Institute - Risk Management Council
• Geoinstitute - Risk Assessment and Management Committee
• EWRI - Risk, Uncertainty, And Probabilistic Approaches Committee
• IRD - Risk And Resilience Measurements Committee 
• UESI - Utility Risk Research And Education Council
• SEI - Task Group 3 Risk Assessment and Decision Making
• CACC - TC On Risk Communication For Climate Change
• EWRI - Risk, Uncertainty, And Probabilistic Approaches Committee

How shall we parse this?

Bill Mc

Your reply prompted me to do more searching, and I found this guidance from the (UK) Institution for Civil Engineers (ICE) on design risk management. I looked at the NAP document on environmental decision-making, but I think it's much too complicated for practical application. I like the ICE guidance for its simplicity. I think the civil engineering community would benefit from US-specific guidance along the lines of the ICE document. 

The ASCE has a committee on Risk Assessment and Management. It would be great to hear from the committee chairs on this topic and the possibility of creating US-specific guidance on risk assessment and management focused on practicing engineers.

It is good that we're thinking about it. Here is what I like to add.

As I see it, uncertainty, probability or likelihood, and risk assessment and management – all belong to the Risk Envelope – Uncertainty and Risk.

There are at least two NAP publications I came across: The 2013 U.S EPA Env Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty # 12568; and The 2024 Advancing Risk Communication . . . Atypical Climate Events # 27933, that provide some great directions to Risk Assessment and Management.

The method of risk assessment, obtained as the product of the probability of occurrence of an event and the damage consequences of that event, is rather well-established. Estimating the probable but realistic damages and assigning financial values to them – have not been something easy to do (during the planning and design phases of a project) in the past. It is only the recent advances of GIS, mapping and remote sensing technologies – that have made the efforts easier, for example to estimate flood and storm surge damages.

There is also an easy assessment approach, called the method of Encounter Probability. It relates the return period (in years) of an event to the design life of a project. For example, the likelihood or probability that a 100-year event will be encountered during the 30-year design life is 26%.

Despite its simplicity, encounter probability reinforces the common notion of the design philosophy that – the longer the lifetime of a project – the stronger its components must be to withstand the long return-period events. It's a risk minimization step.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

My encounters with project and regulatory engineers suggests widespread ignorance about risk management. They know the words, but not the principles and practices.

For example, I attended a public agency workshop on risk in which the organizers defined risk incorrectly as the "probability of adverse event occurrence," instead of the correct engineering definition that includes two distinct components in risk – the probability of an event and the magnitude of consequences from that event. Even ASCE Policy Statement 437 on Risk Management is fuzzy on the definition. 

The U.S. National Research Council and International Standards Organization provide engineering practice guidance on risk and risk management consistent with the correct definition.

What more can be done? We can review ASCE's Continuing Education offerings and either create or promote those that teach true risk management. We can add a concise definition to Policy 437. We can encourage an article in ASCE magazine aimed at educating a general engineering audience. 

Thanks for raising the issue, Mitch. It's important.

Bill Mc

Risks are present in almost everything we touch as civil engineers. Civil Engineers implicitly manage risk through design and building codes and standards and explicitly through design choices and trade-offs. Are we doing enough to make the profession understand its role as a risk manager and what more needs to be done?

ASCE recently formed the Committee on Infrastructure Risk Management (CIRM) to address these topics.  CIRM's mission is to provide a platform for interdisciplinary sharing of knowledge and research on risk management.  It will act as a bridge between different disciplines, including the various existing committees that discuss specific types of risks.

Please reach out to me if you are interested in learning more about CIRM.

Friends: I started writing a draft message to "the" risk committee for group review and diverted to get a list of committees and chairs. This is a partial list of ASCE groups with "Risk" in their title:

• Construction Institute - Risk Management Council
• Geoinstitute - Risk Assessment and Management Committee
• EWRI - Risk, Uncertainty, And Probabilistic Approaches Committee
• IRD - Risk And Resilience Measurements Committee 
• UESI - Utility Risk Research And Education Council
• SEI - Task Group 3 Risk Assessment and Decision Making
• CACC - TC On Risk Communication For Climate Change
• EWRI - Risk, Uncertainty, And Probabilistic Approaches Committee

How shall we parse this?

Bill Mc

Your reply prompted me to do more searching, and I found this guidance from the (UK) Institution for Civil Engineers (ICE) on design risk management. I looked at the NAP document on environmental decision-making, but I think it's much too complicated for practical application. I like the ICE guidance for its simplicity. I think the civil engineering community would benefit from US-specific guidance along the lines of the ICE document. 

The ASCE has a committee on Risk Assessment and Management. It would be great to hear from the committee chairs on this topic and the possibility of creating US-specific guidance on risk assessment and management focused on practicing engineers.

It is good that we're thinking about it. Here is what I like to add.

As I see it, uncertainty, probability or likelihood, and risk assessment and management – all belong to the Risk Envelope – Uncertainty and Risk.

There are at least two NAP publications I came across: The 2013 U.S EPA Env Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty # 12568; and The 2024 Advancing Risk Communication . . . Atypical Climate Events # 27933, that provide some great directions to Risk Assessment and Management.

The method of risk assessment, obtained as the product of the probability of occurrence of an event and the damage consequences of that event, is rather well-established. Estimating the probable but realistic damages and assigning financial values to them – have not been something easy to do (during the planning and design phases of a project) in the past. It is only the recent advances of GIS, mapping and remote sensing technologies – that have made the efforts easier, for example to estimate flood and storm surge damages.

There is also an easy assessment approach, called the method of Encounter Probability. It relates the return period (in years) of an event to the design life of a project. For example, the likelihood or probability that a 100-year event will be encountered during the 30-year design life is 26%.

Despite its simplicity, encounter probability reinforces the common notion of the design philosophy that – the longer the lifetime of a project – the stronger its components must be to withstand the long return-period events. It's a risk minimization step.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

My encounters with project and regulatory engineers suggests widespread ignorance about risk management. They know the words, but not the principles and practices.

For example, I attended a public agency workshop on risk in which the organizers defined risk incorrectly as the "probability of adverse event occurrence," instead of the correct engineering definition that includes two distinct components in risk – the probability of an event and the magnitude of consequences from that event. Even ASCE Policy Statement 437 on Risk Management is fuzzy on the definition. 

The U.S. National Research Council and International Standards Organization provide engineering practice guidance on risk and risk management consistent with the correct definition.

What more can be done? We can review ASCE's Continuing Education offerings and either create or promote those that teach true risk management. We can add a concise definition to Policy 437. We can encourage an article in ASCE magazine aimed at educating a general engineering audience. 

Thanks for raising the issue, Mitch. It's important.

Bill Mc

Risks are present in almost everything we touch as civil engineers. Civil Engineers implicitly manage risk through design and building codes and standards and explicitly through design choices and trade-offs. Are we doing enough to make the profession understand its role as a risk manager and what more needs to be done?

Hi Eric,

Could you provide details about the committee's activities and explain how we can become members?

ASCE recently formed the Committee on Infrastructure Risk Management (CIRM) to address these topics.  CIRM's mission is to provide a platform for interdisciplinary sharing of knowledge and research on risk management.  It will act as a bridge between different disciplines, including the various existing committees that discuss specific types of risks.

Please reach out to me if you are interested in learning more about CIRM.

Friends: I started writing a draft message to "the" risk committee for group review and diverted to get a list of committees and chairs. This is a partial list of ASCE groups with "Risk" in their title:

• Construction Institute - Risk Management Council
• Geoinstitute - Risk Assessment and Management Committee
• EWRI - Risk, Uncertainty, And Probabilistic Approaches Committee
• IRD - Risk And Resilience Measurements Committee 
• UESI - Utility Risk Research And Education Council
• SEI - Task Group 3 Risk Assessment and Decision Making
• CACC - TC On Risk Communication For Climate Change
• EWRI - Risk, Uncertainty, And Probabilistic Approaches Committee

How shall we parse this?

Bill Mc

Your reply prompted me to do more searching, and I found this guidance from the (UK) Institution for Civil Engineers (ICE) on design risk management. I looked at the NAP document on environmental decision-making, but I think it's much too complicated for practical application. I like the ICE guidance for its simplicity. I think the civil engineering community would benefit from US-specific guidance along the lines of the ICE document. 

The ASCE has a committee on Risk Assessment and Management. It would be great to hear from the committee chairs on this topic and the possibility of creating US-specific guidance on risk assessment and management focused on practicing engineers.

It is good that we're thinking about it. Here is what I like to add.

As I see it, uncertainty, probability or likelihood, and risk assessment and management – all belong to the Risk Envelope – Uncertainty and Risk.

There are at least two NAP publications I came across: The 2013 U.S EPA Env Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty # 12568; and The 2024 Advancing Risk Communication . . . Atypical Climate Events # 27933, that provide some great directions to Risk Assessment and Management.

The method of risk assessment, obtained as the product of the probability of occurrence of an event and the damage consequences of that event, is rather well-established. Estimating the probable but realistic damages and assigning financial values to them – have not been something easy to do (during the planning and design phases of a project) in the past. It is only the recent advances of GIS, mapping and remote sensing technologies – that have made the efforts easier, for example to estimate flood and storm surge damages.

There is also an easy assessment approach, called the method of Encounter Probability. It relates the return period (in years) of an event to the design life of a project. For example, the likelihood or probability that a 100-year event will be encountered during the 30-year design life is 26%.

Despite its simplicity, encounter probability reinforces the common notion of the design philosophy that – the longer the lifetime of a project – the stronger its components must be to withstand the long return-period events. It's a risk minimization step.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

My encounters with project and regulatory engineers suggests widespread ignorance about risk management. They know the words, but not the principles and practices.

For example, I attended a public agency workshop on risk in which the organizers defined risk incorrectly as the "probability of adverse event occurrence," instead of the correct engineering definition that includes two distinct components in risk – the probability of an event and the magnitude of consequences from that event. Even ASCE Policy Statement 437 on Risk Management is fuzzy on the definition. 

The U.S. National Research Council and International Standards Organization provide engineering practice guidance on risk and risk management consistent with the correct definition.

What more can be done? We can review ASCE's Continuing Education offerings and either create or promote those that teach true risk management. We can add a concise definition to Policy 437. We can encourage an article in ASCE magazine aimed at educating a general engineering audience. 

Thanks for raising the issue, Mitch. It's important.

Bill Mc

Risks are present in almost everything we touch as civil engineers. Civil Engineers implicitly manage risk through design and building codes and standards and explicitly through design choices and trade-offs. Are we doing enough to make the profession understand its role as a risk manager and what more needs to be done?