Bob Liebe — Risk Analysis Frameworks for Counterterrorism

Bio (From the SARMA Conference Agenda)

Robert Liebe is a senior decision analyst with Innovative Designs, Inc. and specializes in risk analysis methods and their applicability to homeland security and resource allocation problems.  After flying helicopters in the Marines, Bob became an operations analyst for them applying an array of analyst techniques for the Corps’ analytic challenges.

Abstract (SARMA Agenda)

This presentation focuses on risk frameworks, the first step towards coordinated risk management approaches.  We will first discuss essential risk terminology and the relationships among basic concepts.  We then introduce the concept of a risk framework and summarize our research on 17 diverse frameworks.  Based on this research, we identify 12 risk analysis elements that can be used to evaluate risk frameworks.  We illustrate two types of risk frameworks: conceptual and procedural.

Clear Understanding of Terms

This subject is something that came up numerous times at the conference, a single, understood definition of terms is mostly impossible to find.  However, a framework for organizing thoughts and approaches would be useful.  For the purpose of this presentation, Mr. Liebe laid out the definition of a Framework that was used in their study.

Framework – A conceptual or procedural structure used to address complex issues.

Benefits – Vehicle for Risk Communication and a way to specify data to be collected.

2 Types of Risk Frameworks

Next, we moved to comparisons between the two types of Risk Frameworks, Conceptual and Procedural.   Conceptual  Frameworks are simple and artistic whereas Procedural Frameworks are sequential flows that guide and gain confidence in an analysis process.

Developed Comprehensive Procedural Risk Analysis Framework

The point of their research was to develop these frameworks, and they chose procedural.  They looked at 30 frameworks already in place and whittled them down to just 12 usable ones.  They were listed in the following order.  1. Identify Goals and Objectives 2. Define the System 3. Assess Threat 4. Assess Vulnerability 5. Assess Consequences 6. Identify Risk Management Options 7. Assess Baseline Risk 8. Analyze Benefits and Cost 9. Make Decisions 10. Communicate Risk 11. Implement 12. Monitor.

Use in Real Life?

What is the point of this research if it isn’t applicable in real life?  That’s what they thought, so this method was used for Navy Installation using two analysis.  1. Counter-Measure Portfolios.  Purpose: Identify recommended portfolios of terrorism counter-measures for protecting Navy Facilities.  Scope: Terrorist attacks that are likely in the next 5 years on the continental US.  2. Manning Policy Analysis.  Purpose: Assess risk of reduced manning levels for Navy Security Forces.

Results: Increased manning made little contribution against seaward attacks, but it helped land attacks.

Relevance

Basically, what these researchers did was look at different ways of performing Risk Analysis and coming up with a fusion of most of them to assess Navy Facilities.  Taking research into real world situations is what all researchers strive for and, in their case, it worked. Being that this was one of my first sessions, I had still learned little about Risk Analysis.  But now, I can look back and realize that what they did is really a big step forward.  This whole conference, SARMA was talking about how they wanted to make a base of Risk Analysis that all professionals could draw off of.  Maybe, these researchers have already found it.