Augmenting the Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks.

Abstract

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) characterized and prioritized the physical cross-border threats and hazards to the nation stemming from terrorism, market-driven illicit flows of people and goods (illegal immigration, narcotics, funds, counterfeits, and weaponry), and other nonmarket concerns (movement of diseases, pests, and invasive species). These threats and hazards pose a wide diversity of consequences with very different combinations of magnitudes and likelihoods, making it very challenging to prioritize them. This article presents the approach that was used at DHS to arrive at a consensus regarding the threats and hazards that stand out from the rest based on the overall risk they pose. Due to time constraints for the decision analysis, it was not feasible to apply multiattribute methodologies like multiattribute utility theory or the analytic hierarchy process. Using a holistic approach was considered, such as the deliberative method for ranking risks first published in this journal. However, an ordinal ranking alone does not indicate relative or absolute magnitude differences among the risks. Therefore, the use of the deliberative method for ranking risks is not sufficient for deciding whether there is a material difference between the top-ranked and bottom-ranked risks, let alone deciding what the stand-out risks are. To address this limitation of ordinal rankings, the deliberative method for ranking risks was augmented by adding an additional step to transform the ordinal ranking into a ratio scale ranking. This additional step enabled the selection of stand-out risks to help prioritize further analysis.