Measurement

The definition of measurement is probably more inclusive of methods than you would expect.

Philosophers, standards bodies, and scientists all hold that measurement is approximation. They all assume that uncertainty exists in measurement. They all endeavor to reduce it.

We often use an objective instrument to measure something, but this does not eliminate uncertainty. For instance, we may use a ruler to measure the size of a table. When an objective instrument does not exist… we rely on increasingly unreliable methods. For instance, a reference, historical statistics, estimations, and wild ass guesses.

An example: You want to move furniture. You have no tape measure.

What do you do?

You’ll probably use your hands, feet, and eyes.

This is still measurement. Having a preference for a tape measure does not make other methods not measurement. Your individual preference for the best available measurement is not a demarcation of what gets to be a measurement.

In risk, impartial and direct measurements would be extremely valuable. Unfortunately, many of the risk events we care about haven’t happened yet.

They’re in the future!

Directly applicable instruments are not available to directly and impartially measure future events. Of course.

Measurements that are available to inform on a risk are indirect. They introduce subjectivity, and with that: partial views and cognitive bias.

The last mile of risk measurement is often Expert Elicitation from people who are well informed on the data and realities of a situation. This topic is referred to as adjustment, and is seen in multiple industries - though, handled with care, and under professional standards.