Method for analyzing risks in a technical project

• US 8,744,893 B2
• Filed: 04/11/2007
• Issued: 06/03/2014
• Est. Priority Date: 04/11/2006
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Siemens AG
• Original Assignee: Siemens AG
• Inventors: Dreimann, Markus, Ehlers, Petra, Sturm, Alexander, Goerisch, Andre, Maeckel, Oliver, Sporer, Ralph
• Primary Examiner(s): Koneru, Sujay
• Application Number:
  US11/783,736
• Publication Number:
  US 20070255583A1
• Time in Patent Office: 2,610 Days
• Field of Search: 705 711- 742
• US Class Current: 705/7.28
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/0635 Risk analysis of enterprise or organisation activities
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/06 Asset management; Financial planning or analysis

Abstract

A method analyzes risks in a technical project for developing or manufacturing a technical system or technical components or a technical process, wherein the following steps are carried out in a risk identification process: a) provision or determination of a large number of qualitative evaluations of risks in the technical project; b) determination of a large number of quantitative evaluations of the risks; c) comparison of the qualitative and quantitative evaluations for each risk, as a result of which a comparison outcome is established for each risk; d) definition of a permissible region of comparison outcomes; e) classification of the risks that are situated outside the permissible region as unacceptable risks; f) analysis of the unacceptable risks in order to identify uncertainties in the risk analysis and further risks.

Claims

1. A method of analyzing risks in developing at least a portion of a technical system, comprising:

performing a large number of technical evaluations of risks in the technical system;

performing a large number of monetary evaluations of the risks;

comparing the technical and monetary evaluations for each risk to produce a comparison outcome for each risk;

defining a permissible region by setting the monetary evaluations of risks against technical evaluations of the risks;

classifying each risk having a comparison outcome outside of the permissible region as an implausible risk; and

analyzing, by a processor, the implausible risks in order to identify uncertainties in the analyzing of risks and to identify further risks, and

wherein the risks comprise warranty risks,

wherein each risk is assigned a probability of occurrence and a monetary amount of damage upon occurrence, the monetary evaluation being a function of the probability of occurrence multiplied by the monetary amount of damage, and

the probability of occurrence of a warranty risk is probability of damage covered by a warranty to a technical component within a predefined operating period of the technical component multiplied by a quantity of technical components and a monetary amount of damage covered by the warranty for the technical component.

2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a result of the analyzing indicates a permissible region defined as a delimited region in a two-dimensional graph.

3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the evaluations are compared and the permissible region is defined in such a way that the comparison outcome for each risk is a position of the technical and monetary evaluations of the risk in a two-dimensional graph, a technical evaluation scale being plotted on one axis of the graph and a monetary evaluation scale being plotted on another axis of the graph.

4. The method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the permissible region is a delimited region in the two-dimensional graph.

5. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein each risk is assigned a probability of occurrence and a monetary amount of damage upon occurrence, the monetary evaluation upon being a function of probability of occurrence multiplied by the monetary amount of damage.

6. The method as claimed in claim 5, wherein the risks are depicted as flat objects in the two-dimensional graph, a size of each flat object depicting the probability of occurrence of the corresponding risk.

7. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one risk is assigned an event, the occurrence of which corresponds to the occurrence of the risk.

8. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the event causes the risk.

9. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the event defines a consequence of the risk.

10. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the risks comprise project risks.

11. The method as claimed in claim 1, the technical evaluations comprise intuitive evaluations of the respective risks, the intuitive evaluations being performed by questioning people involved in developing the technical system.

12. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the technical evaluations originate at least partly from a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis FMEA technical risk analysis.

13. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein risks are analyzed after a risk identification process.

14. The method as claimed in claim 13, wherein, in analyzing the risks, the risks are divided into evaluation classes as a function of their respective monetary evaluations, the evaluation classes comprising “

tolerable”

, “

critical”

, and “

catastrophic”

.

15. The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein each monetary evaluation is determined by a probability of occurrence and a monetary damage amount, the amount of monetary damage being plotted on one axis of a two-dimensional graph and the probability of occurrence being plotted on another axis of the graph.

16. The method as claimed in claim 15, wherein delimited regions are defined in the two-dimensional graph, each delimited region corresponding to one of the evaluation classes, and

positions of the risks in the two-dimensional graph determine respective evaluation classes.

17. The method as claimed in claim 15, wherein the risks are depicted as flat objects in the two-dimensional graph, a size of each flat object corresponding to the technical evaluation of the risk.

18. The method as claimed in claim 13, wherein each monetary evaluation is determined by a probability of occurrence and a monetary damage amount of the risk,

the risks are subdivided into accounting groups as a function of their probabilities of occurrence, and

the risks are treated differently in a financial balance sheet of a company as a function of the accounting group.

19. The method as claimed in claim 18, wherein risks with a probability of occurrence of more than 80% are included in the balance sheet with their monetary damage amount, and

risks with a probability of occurrence of 80% or less are included in the balance sheet with their monetary evaluation.

20. The method as claimed in claim 19, wherein risks with a probability of occurrence of less than 50% are added together and reported in the balance sheet as a single item.

21. The method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the method for analyzing risks is followed by an action planning process for reducing the risks, the monetary and technical evaluations of the risks being performed again following the action planning process with the risks being compared before and after the action planning process.

22. The method as claimed in claim 21, wherein, following the action planning process, monetary costs of planned corrective measures are estimated and compared with cumulative monetary evaluations of the risks before and after the action planning process.

23. The method as claimed in claim 21, wherein the quantitative and technical evaluations of the risks are assessed according to a risk assessment process following the action planning process.