Accident And Design: Contemporary Debates On Risk Management [Paperback]

C. Hood (Editor), D. K. C. Jones (Editor)

Book Description

Publication Date: October 3, 1996 | ISBN-10: 1857285980 | ISBN-13: 978-1857285987

An examination of different theoretical, methodological and practical approaches towards the management of risk. Seven dimensions of the debate are identified, and the case for each position is put forward, the whole discussion being set in context and perspective. This volume attempts to identify and juxtapose the contested doctrines and underlying assumptions in the field of risk management.

Product Details

• Paperback: 272 pages
• Publisher: Routledge (October 3, 1996)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1857285980
• ISBN-13: 978-1857285987
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 5.9 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #4,217,015 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Risk management scientists of the world unite, March 12, 2006

By 

Dmitry Dvoinikov (Ekaterinburg, Russia) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Accident And Design: Contemporary Debates On Risk Management (Paperback)

This book is a manifesto in which a group of apparently highly knowledgeable UK professors say: "we believe that there is more to risk management than is currently acknowledged".

Quote:
The argument of this contribution is that, although [conventional way of doing things] is always likely to have a place in risk management, there is no reason why it should be the only available approach.

The very fact that appears to have triggered this publication was the (scientific society) rejection of some other previosuly published work on the grounds of "not being scientific enough".

The main idea of this book is that risk management is subject to uncertainties so high, that common "scientific" way of dealing with risks is not working. And their arguments are very convincing. The following two metaphors from the book will let you quickly catch it.

Conventional approach is compared with a thermostat. Once set to a desired temperature it uses feedback mechanisms to return to equilibrium.

The argued for approach is compared with a desk lamp, the one with two springs on it's sides. The lamp is always experienses heavy tensions from both springs, but as soon as they counterbalance each other, the lamp is not only keeping steady state, it also can be adjusted into any desired position with a fingertip touch.

Not just as simple as that, the authors offer a set of dimensions along which the taxonomy of risk management principles and procedures can be measured. There are seven such axes. Along each axis, the two diametrically opposed point of views are proposed and discussed in two or more chapters. This gives a good coverage of the entire spectrum.

The book was published in 1996, ten years back in time at the moment of this writing, but I doubt if there were some groundbreaking developments in the topic of risk management. This by the way is one of the other discussed traits of risk management: as it's not "normal" science, it has to deal with political and societal forces and those are very slow to change.

I came to this book from software development point of view, and although it discusses environmental hazards instead, it's highly philosophical and before I knew it, I ended up writing notes on the margins and underlining the entire paragraphs.

Why 4 stars, not 5 ? Two reasons.

First, there are articles that are worse than others (but frankly I can remember only one such article which really said nothing at all).

Second, and more important was the language. I'm sure the respectable English professors managed to write perfectly good English, but then, I must be not very good at perfectly good English.

Consider this quote:
Perceptions of systems tend towards a closure of the perceived explanatory structure in ways that reinforce supportive patterns of belief and, in particular, the belief that someone, even if not the particular actor is, or could be, in control.

Please, there must be a simpler way of saying the same thing. How about "people tend to believe that someone is in control" ? Bashing through complex language really distracts from following the otherwise excellent and mind-provoking discussion.

All in all, no matter which direction you arrived from, this book offers a very good interdisciplinary discussion of risk management in modern world.