Transcript Expert Opinion Elicitation

Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Expert-Opinion Elicitation
Robert C. Patev
North Atlantic Division – Regional Technical Specialist
(978) 318-8394
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Expert-Opinion Elicitation
• Subjective Estimation
• Elicitation Process
– Background
– Expert-Opinion Elicitation (EOE) Process
• Probability
– Axioms of Probability
– Medians and Percentiles
• Training Example
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Subjective Estimation
• Uses of one or more experts to estimate a
probability (qualitative or quantitative) for
use in engineering risk analysis
– Good for first estimate of probabilities
– Quick, cost effective and efficient method
– Problems:
•
•
•
•
•
Not a formal elicitation
Usually not well documented
Probabilities may not be repeatable or defendable
Probabilities may be highly subjective and biased
Probabilities have larger uncertainties compared to
structured elicitation values
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Subjective Estimation
• How good are we at quantifying subjective
estimates?
• Let us see…..
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Subjective Estimation
• How good are we at quantifying subjective
estimates?
– Class Example:
• How may ships passed through the Panama
Canal last year?
– Give best estimate
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Expert-Opinion Elicitation
• Background
– Process developed by RAND Corporation in
late 1950’s - early 1960’s
• Delphi Method
• Scenario Analysis
– Effects of thermonuclear war
– Civil Defense strategic planning
• Examine if U.S. population could survive a
nuclear attack
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Expert-Opinion Elicitation
• Background
– Definition
– A formal (protocol), heuristic (through
discussion) process of obtaining information
or answers to specific questions called issues
• e.g., failure rates or probabilities, and failure
consequences
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Expert-Opinion Elicitation
• Background
– EOE is used for preliminary risk evaluation
(screening) is not really intended to replace
more complex reliability models
– EOE has been used by industry and
government agencies to develop failure
probabilities when there is a lack of failure
information
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Expert-Opinion Elicitation
• Drawbacks
– Subjective process
• Not consensus building
• Inherently contains bias and dominance
– Difficult to process result to determine reliability or
hazard rates
• Assumptions need to be made
• Current Usage in USACE
– Supplement to other models
• Calculate reliability (not for critical components)
• Event tree probabilities
• Used in consultation with HQUSACE
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Expert-Opinion Elicitation
• EOE Process
– Participants
• Experts
• Observers
• Listeners
• Technical Integrator and Facilitator
• Peer Reviewers
– ITR process and results
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Expert-Opinion Elicitation
• EOE Process
– Identification and Selection of Experts
• Strong relevant expertise
• Familiarity and knowledge with issues
• Willingness to act as impartial evaluators
• Willingness to participate, prepare, and
provide needed input
• Strong communication skills, interpersonal
skills, and ability to generalize
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Expert-Opinion Elicitation
• EOE Process
– Inform experts of issues
• “Read ahead” materials
• Site visits
– Train experts
– Elicitation
• First opinion
• Discussion among experts
• Second opinion
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Expert-Opinion Elicitation
• Probability
– General expressions
• Percent (1% probability of failure)
• Fraction (1/100)
• Relative frequency (1 out of 1000)
– Axioms of Probability
• 0 < Pf < 1
• Sum of probabilities over all possible
outcomes must equal 1.
– This assume events are independent.
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Expert-Opinion Elicitation
• Statistics
– Median
• e.g., Median income, median age
• Rank value
• For odd n, value with rank of (n+1)/2
• For even n, average of value with rank n/2 or
(n/2) + 1
• Used to limit extreme values
– Average
• Sum of Xi divided by sample size
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Median Vs. Average
• Sample 1
–
–
–
–
–
100
100
200
300
400
• Median = 200
• Average = 220
• Sample 2
–
–
–
–
–
100
100
200
300
2000
• Median = 200
• Average = 540
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Expert-Opinion Elicitation
• Percentiles
– A p-percentile value (Xp) based on a sample is
the value of the parameter such that p% of the
data is less than or equal to Xp
• e.g., The median is the 50th percentile
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Chickamauga Lock and Dam
Chickamauga Lock and Dam Expert Elicitation
Issue #4 - River Wall Blocks
Event
Name
Full Description
of Issue
First
Response
Question #1a:
Unconstrained flow
of water through the
river wall adversely
effecting the ability
to dewater the lock
and/or
filling/emptying
operation
Expert-opinion elicitation
Given the failure mode identified
for the river wall without any
advanced maintenance (fix-asfails scenario), what is the
probability of that failure by the
year 2005?
Expert #1
Expert #2
Expert #3
Expert #4
Expert #5
Expert #6
Minimum =
Median =
Maximum =
Median =
0.10%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
1.0%
0.01%
0.10%
1.00%
“ Building Strong “
Summary
Table
Second
Response
Median =
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
1.0%
0.01%
0.10%
1.00%
0.1%
Minimum =
0.01%
25 Percentile =
0.03%
Median =
0.10%
75 Percentile =
0.10%
90 Percentile =
0.55%
High =
1.00%
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Chickamauga Lock and Dam
Chickamauga Lock and Dam Expert Elicitation
Issue #4 - River Wall Filling/Emptying Cracking
Event
Name
Full Description
of Issue
First
Response
Question #1d:
Unconstrained flow
of water through the
river wall adversely
effecting the ability
to dewater the lock
and/or
filling/emptying
operation
Expert-opinion elicitation
Given the failure mode identified
for the River Wall Blocks without
any advanced maintenance (fixas-fails scenario), what is the
probability of that failure by the
year 2050?
Expert #1
Expert #2
Expert #3
Expert #4
Expert #5
Expert #6
Minimum =
Median =
Maximum =
Median =
30.00%
30.0%
20.0%
40.0%
30.0%
50.0%
30.0%
20.00%
30.00%
50.00%
“ Building Strong “
Summary
Table
Second
Response
Median =
30.0%
25.0%
40.0%
30.0%
40.0%
30.0%
25.00%
30.00%
40.00%
30.0%
Minimum =
25.00%
25 Percentile =
30.00%
Median =
30.00%
75 Percentile =
37.50%
90 Percentile =
40.00%
High =
40.00%
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Chickamauga Lock and Dam
Chickamauga Lock and Dam Expert Elicitation
Issue #4 - River Wall Blocks
Event
Name
Full Description
of Issue
Expert-opinion elicitation
First
Response
Question #3a:
Unconstrained flow
of water through the
river wall adversely
effecting the ability
to dewater the lock
and/or
filling/emptying
operation
Given the fix-as-fails probability of
failure for the river wall
filling/emptying system, what is the
probability that the chamber closure
time would be 30 days for less?
Between 31 and 89 days? 90 days
or greater? NOTE: All three
branches must add up to a total of
1.
Expert #1
Expert #2
Expert #3
Expert #4
Expert #5
Expert #6
Summary
Table
Second
Response
Minimum
25 Percentile
Median
75 Percentile
Maximum
=
=
=
=
=
< 30 days
31-89 days
90 day +
< 30 days
31-89 days
90 day +
99.0%
80.0%
95.0%
95.0%
90.0%
85.0%
1.0%
15.0%
5.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
5.0%
99.0%
80.0%
95.0%
95.0%
90.0%
85.0%
1.0%
15.0%
5.0%
5.0%
8.0%
10.0%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
5.0%
80.00%
86.25%
92.50%
95.00%
99.00%
1.00%
5.00%
6.50%
9.50%
15.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.00%
4.25%
5.00%
80.00%
86.25%
92.50%
95.00%
99.00%
1.00%
5.00%
6.50%
9.50%
15.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.00%
4.25%
5.00%
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Chickamauga Lock and Dam
Cumulative Probabality of Failure (curve-fit)
1.000
Probabality
0.800
0.600
Cumulative
0.400
0.200
0.000
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Year
“ Building Strong “
Delivering Integrated, Sustainable,
Water Resources Solutions
Expert-Opinion Elicitation
• Class Example
– Six experts required
– Unknown issue given to experts
• Define assumptions of issue
• Elicit first values
• First results
• Expert Discussion
• Elicit second values
• Show final elicitation results
“ Building Strong “