ABSTRACT
In the aftermath it seems obvious that the assumption and background knowledge should have been better analyzed and given weight to in some way, as it turned out to be a major source of the surprising attack. The current paper is based on the thesis that managers are well qualified for understanding and managing risk and uncertainties, but that there has been a lack of suitable conceptual frameworks available that adequately address the knowledge dimension. It is for instance common to consider risk to contain a combination of consequences (loss) and probabilities (Lowrence 1976, Kaplan & Garrick 1981, Ale 2002), which pays little attention to the knowledge base, including the assumptions, underpinning the numbers. Deviations in the knowledge base can lead to quite different numbers. The risk, uncertainty and potential for surprises associated with this knowledge base need to be addressed and given weight to in some way. Giving weight to risk, uncertainties and potential surprises, in synthesis and balance with other concerns, is primarily the responsibility of the managers, though risk analysts need to contribute to the analysis part, informing the managers. The aim of the paper is to guide managers and analysts on how to conceptualize risk-giving due attention to the knowledge dimension-and on what principles to use in order to understand, assess, manage and communicate risk in relation to situations of large uncertainties and high values at stake.
