A ranking model for assessing organizational risks to validate the accuracy of results derived from a hierarchical information model

Introduction. The paper addresses the task of verifying the accuracy of quantitative parametric values derived from transforming qualitative characteristics of organizational risks (OR) using a hierarchical information model (IM) in practice. An approach is proposed to represent the integrated security system (ISS) as an organizational management system, where OR are considered, causal factors influencing the likelihood of dangerous events such as accidents and fires. A conditional information measure — the “conditional bit” — is suggested to reflect the contribution of a specific risk to a realized dangerous event.

The object of the study is the ISS of explosive and fire-hazardous enterprises, presented as an organizational management system.

The subject of the study includes models and factors for quantifying OR, confirming the reliability of modeling results obtained using a hierarchical IM.

The article aims to develop a rank-based model for assessing OR, validating the practical applicability of a hierarchical IM.

The scientific novelty lies in proposing an approach to quantify OR in explosive and fire-hazardous enterprises using a normalized conditional information measure, enabling the distribution of contributions from multiple organizational causes within a single dangerous event and the formation of a ranked risk list to support decision-making.

Methods. Methods the rank order centroid (ROC) method is validated for transforming ordinal ranks of causal factors into fixed weights. Its advantage over alternative methods for estimating OR lies in its complete determinism and guaranteed monotonicity.

Conclusions. The possibility of calibrating qualitative OR characteristics using a five-digit template matrix is demonstrated, applicable to various industry-specific safety management contexts. There is potential to develop a software product calculating performance indicators for safety personnel (IS, FS, OS) and PSU personnel, ensuring the efficient functioning of the ISS and enabling adjustments to management processes to prevent OR from manifesting as hazardous events (accidents and fires).

1. Gvozdev E.V. Methodology of rational-targeted development of a comprehensive safety system at enterprises of the oil and gas complex of Russia : dissertation of Doctor of Technical Sciences. Moscow, 2023; 257. EDN PIFCBH. (rus).

2. Gvozdev E.V. Organizational Risk Assessment at Russian Oil and Gas Industry Enterprises, Providing Results of Deviation of the Basic Vector on the Orthogonal Plane. Occupational Safety in Industry. 2026; 2:44-54. DOI: 10.­24000/0409-2961-2026-2-44-54. EDN ZCTIVD. (rus).

3. Gvozdev E.V. Developing a Professional Risk Assessment Method for Occupational Safety Management at Electric Power Enterprises. Occupational Safety in Industry. 2026; 3:27-35. DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2026-3-27-35. EDN BBYBCJ. (rus).

4. Gvozdev E. Development of an integrated safety sistem for production facilities: the problem statement and the proposed solution. Reliability: Theory & Applications. 2024; 19(1-77):474-487. DOI: 10.24412/1932-2321-2024-177-474-487. EDN HWMWCS.

5. Gvozdev E.V. Development of a comprehensive safety management model for explosion and fire hazardous enterprises. Pozharovzryvobezopasnost/Fire and Explosion Safety. 2025; 34(6):33-48. DOI: 10.22227/0869-7493.2025.34.06.33-48. EDN KLGGQM. (rus).

6. Gvozdev E.V. The development of assessment model of personnel’s influence on the condition of the integrated safety system established at production plants. Occupational Safety in Industry. 2024; 2:7-15. DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2024-2-7-15. EDN SJOLEO. (rus).

7. Blumberg V.A., Glushchenko V.F. Which solution is better? The method of setting priorities. Leningrad, Lenizdat, 1982; 160. (rus).

8. Bozanic D., Tešić N., Komazec Marinković D., Puška A. Interval fuzzy AHP method in risk assessment. Reports in Mechanical Engineering. 2023; 4(1):131-140. DOI: 10.31181/rme040122082023b. EDN ZRVDZY.

9. Zhou N.A., Xu Ya. Prioritization Method for Switchgear Maintenance Based on Equipment Failure Mode Analysis and Integrated Risk Assessment. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. 2024; 39(2):728-739. DOI: 10.1109/­tpwrd.­­­­­2023.­­­3335351. EDN PQCNLW.

10. Barron F.H. The potential adopter’s decisio.rule: a constrained optimization model of decision-making under risk and uncertainty : Ph. D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, 1971; 1. EDN FXCVNP.

11. Varshney T., Waghmare A.V., Singh V.P., Ramu M., Patnana N., Meena V.P. et al. Investigation of rank order centroid method for optimal generation control. Scientific Reports. 2024; 14(1):11267. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-61945-z. EDN TFIEII.

12. Hatefi M.A. An Improved Rank Order Centroid Method (IROC) for Criteria Weight Estimation: An Application in the Engine/Vehicle Selection Problem. Informatica. 2023; 249-270. DOI: 10.15388/23-infor507. EDN OCWXWW.

13. Ovsyanik A.I., Kosenok Yu.N. Modeling the Impact of Hazardous Factors on the System “Critically Important Facility — Environmental Environment”. Technology of Technosphere Safety. 2022; 3(97):171-189. DOI: 10.25257/TTS.2022.3.97.171-189. EDN EPRXFK. (rus).

14. Beshelev S.D., Gurvich F.G. Mathematical and Statistical Methods of Expert Assessments. 2nd ed., revised and expanded. Moscow, Statistics, 1980; 263. (rus).

15. Otay İ., Jaller M. Multi-expert disaster risk management & response capabilities assessment using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems. 2020; 38(1):835-852. DOI: 10.3233/jifs-179452. EDN LCVFLM.

16. Geger E.V., Zolotnikova G.P. Assessment of environmental risks to population health in areas ranked by the degree of technogenic pollution. Human Ecology. 2018; 4:10-15. DOI: 10.33396/1728-0869-2018-4-10-15. EDN YXBKLU. (rus).

17. Shershneva E.G., Nosova O.A. Diagnostics of the efficiency of enterprise digitalization based on the Harrington desirability function. Digital models and solutions. 2025; 4(1):5-16. DOI: 10.29141/2949-477X-2025-4-1-1. EDN EPAABD. (rus).

18. Tarasenko B.F., Tsybulevsky V.V., Angelos N., Drobot V.A., Voinash S.A. Comprehensive assessment of small-scale mechanization tools for soil cultivation using the desirability function (Harrington curve). Polythematic network electronic scientific journal of the Kuban State Agrarian University. 2025; 207:79-88. DOI: 10.21515/1990-­4665-207-007. EDN QDBFBQ. (rus).

19. Osinovskaya I.V. Methodical bases of management solutions effectiveness evaluation at the level of oil and gas structures. Economy and entrepreneurship. 2015; 12-2(65):745-748. EDN VECOYJ. (rus).

20. Legendre P. Species associations: the Kendall coefficient of concordance revisited. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics. 2005; 10(2):226-245. DOI: 10.1198/108571105x46642. EDN OZIITG.

21. Averina T.N., Naukenova B.N. Consistency test of discriminant models for assessing the financial condition of enterprises using the kendall concordance coefficient. Symbol of Science: International scientific journal. 2024; 1(12-2):109-112. EDN QZFAAL. (rus).

22. Edwards W., Barron F.H. SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1994; 60(3):306-325. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1994.1087

23. Kaplan S., Garrick B.J. On The Quantitative Definition of Risk. Risk Analysis. 1981; 1(1):11-27. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x