READY FOR TODAY – EVOLVING FOR TOMORROW
work in this area should test this process
to assess real world risks, examine
alternative methods to aggregate
individual input and incorporate additional
safeguards against bias.
Figure 3 – Risk Likelihood Yard Stick
Baysean Probability Theory in practise
Figure 4 – Bayes’ Formula
Bayes’ Conditional Probability Theorem
estimates the likelihood of an event
occurring when we encounter new data.
The value of Bayes’ Theorem is that if it
is continually updated as more evidence
is gathered it brings us closer and closer
to the truth.
For instance, if the initial risk probability
of a missile strike is 31 per cent, what
is the resultant risk probability if the
adversary relocates a static radar site
during the operation? In practise, the
risk group answers two questions. First,
what is the probability that the adversary
would relocate the radar site with intent
to launch a missile? Second, what is
the probability that the adversary would
relocate the radar site without intent
to launch? The risk group responds
respectively with 40 per cent and 60
per cent, respectively, and the risk of a
missile strike given the radar relocation
is calculated as 23 per cent likely. This
oversimplified example illustrates that
the risk analyst must consider whether
the observed event means something
different from their initial estimate.
The results and value of the
process
The outputs derived using Bayes’
Theorem are still subjective, but
informed. Therefore, risk likelihood
is reported using the descriptions on
the yardstick, not the corresponding
percentages. For example, a 22 per cent
initial risk percentage probability value
that later results in a posterior probability
of 29 per cent would be reported as a
risk likelihood increase from unlikely to
plausible.
The value of the process is twofold.
First, this is a defensible solution that
removed layers of subjectivity and
social pressures to update the risk
likelihood of an event occurring using an
academic process. Second, this method
can be used to quickly re-evaluate risk
likelihood as conditions change in the
operational environment. In practise, the
opinion of the risk group will converge
toward the truth as ideas are debated
and new evidence is uncovered.
However, we must provide the process
with new information and that is a pan-
headquarters responsibility.
Implementation
Over the past two years the ARRC
has restructured and validated the
headquarters
risk
management
processes to ensure that operational
risks were well defined, assessed based
on changing conditions and managed
by those with appropriate resources and
authority. The process was validated and
approved shortly after demonstration
during Exercise TRIDENT JUNCTURE
2016. Subsequently, it has been
integrated into the wider headquarters
risk management process. It has been
presented at two NATO Operational
Assessment Conferences and has
informed the risk management processes
of the German-Netherlands Corps and
Multinational Division Northeast.
Conclusion
This process works for a corps
headquarters at both the operational
and tactical levels of combat. The Allied
Rapid Reaction Corps has tested and
iteratively updated its procedures to
ensure the process provides useful input
to tactical decision-making. However,
we will struggle to match the quicker
pace of the tactical battle without pan-
headquarters support in prioritising the
risk group’s efforts.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Major Derek Thornton is a 14-year
veteran of the United States Army
and currently serves as an Operations
Research Analyst for the ARRC. In his
previous assignment he served as a
Military Analyst for the Joint and Coalition
Operational Analysis section within the
US Department of Defense’s Joint Staff
in Washington, DC. Maj. Thornton has
led combat construction and engineer
operations in support of Operation Iraqi
Freedom and served as a Brigade Battle
Captain in support of Operation Enduring
Freedom in Afghanistan. A native of San
Antonio, Texas, Maj. Thornton holds a
Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering from
the Colorado School of Mines and a
Master’s Degree in Industrial Engineering
from New Mexico State University.
This concept is applicable to any
question relating to future conditions,
such as intelligence estimates, future
resource availability or internal capability
projections. This process is also scalable
and can be used to assist organising
and consolidating group input. Future
Figure 5 – Updated risk likelihood estimate
ALLIED RAPID REACTION CORPS
35