... Almost all methods applied in daily practice to analyse and assess risk(s), independently of their nature, have been conceptualised and created in the last thirty years of the past century. Amongst the most known and widely used, one can chronologically find the Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) (MIL-P-1629(MIL-P- , 1949, the Delphi Method (DM) (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963;Woudenberg, 1991), the Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) method (MIL-S-38130, 1963;MIL-STD-882, 2012), the Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) method (Haasl, 1965;Hauptmanns, 1988;Watson, 1961), the Political, Economic, Social, and Technological (PEST) method (Aguilar, 1967), the Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunity and Threats (SWOT) method (Andrews, 1971;Porter, 1980;Porter, 1985), the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) method (Bourland, 1993), the Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) method (Lawley, 1974;CIS&HCCIA, 1977), The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method (Boustead, 1972;Hannon, 1972;Sundstrom, 1973;Boustead, 1974), the Event Tree Analysis (ETA) (WASH-1400-MR, 1975, the Bow-Tie Method (BTM) (Gill, 1979), the Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, and Legal (PESTEL) method (Fahey and Narayanan, 1986), the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method (Saaty, 1980;Saaty, 1987), Ecological Footprint (EF) method (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996), and the Cross-Impact Analysis (CIA) method (Glenn & Gordon, 2009). All these methods have the common traits of 1) requiring the analyst to manually create scenarios and/or 2) being static. ...