IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v10y2007i4p273-289.html

Quantitative risk‐based analysis for military counterterrorism systems

Author

Listed:
  • Edouard Kujawski
  • Gregory A. Miller

Abstract

This paper presents a realistic and practical approach to quantitatively assess the risk‐reduction capabilities of military counterterrorism systems in terms of damage cost and casualty figures. The comparison of alternatives is thereby based on absolute quantities rather than an aggregated utility or value provided by multicriteria decision analysis methods. The key elements of the approach are (1) the use of decision‐attack event trees for modeling and analyzing scenarios, (2) a portfolio model approach for analyzing multiple threats, and (3) the quantitative probabilistic risk assessment matrix for communicating the results. Decision‐attack event trees are especially appropriate for modeling and analyzing terrorist attacks where the sequence of events and outcomes are time‐sensitive. The actions of the attackers and the defenders are modeled as decisions and the outcomes are modeled as probabilistic events. The quantitative probabilistic risk assessment matrix provides information about the range of the possible outcomes while retaining the simplicity of the classic safety risk assessment matrix based on Mil‐Std‐882D. It therefore provides a simple and reliable tool for comparing alternatives on the basis of risk including confidence levels rather than single point estimates. This additional valuable information requires minimal additional effort. The proposed approach is illustrated using a simplified but realistic model of a destroyer operating in inland restricted waters. The complex problem of choosing a robust counterterrorism protection system against multiple terrorist threats is analyzed by introducing a surrogate multi‐threat portfolio. The associated risk profile provides a practical approach for assessing the robustness of different counterterrorism systems against plausible terrorist threats. The paper documents the analysis for a hypothetical case of three potential threats. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 10: 273–289, 2007

Suggested Citation

  • Edouard Kujawski & Gregory A. Miller, 2007. "Quantitative risk‐based analysis for military counterterrorism systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 273-289, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:10:y:2007:i:4:p:273-289
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.20075
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20075
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.20075?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edouard Kujawski & Mariana L. Alvaro & William R. Edwards, 2004. "Incorporating psychological influences in probabilistic cost analysis," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 195-216.
    2. Edouard Kujawski, 2002. "Selection of technical risk responses for efficient contingencies," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 194-212.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. Stanley Kaplan, 1981. "On The Method of Discrete Probability Distributions in Risk and Reliability Calculations–Application to Seismic Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(3), pages 189-196, September.
    5. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    6. Robin L. Dillon & Richard John & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2002. "Assessment of Cost Uncertainties for Large Technology Projects: A Methodology and an Application," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 52-66, August.
    7. Harry F. Martz & Mark E. Johnson, 1987. "Risk Analysis of Terrorist Attacks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 35-47, March.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Yossi Sheffi, 2005. "The Resilient Enterprise: Overcoming Vulnerability for Competitive Advantage," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262693496, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Edouard Kujawski, 2016. "A Probabilistic Game‐Theoretic Method to Assess Deterrence and Defense Benefits of Security Systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(6), pages 549-566, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Jose, Victor Richmond R. & Knowlton, Morgan & Shachter, Ross & Siebert, Johannes Ulrich & Ulu, Canan, 2026. "Fifty years of decision analysis in operational research: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 329(2), pages 355-377.
    2. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    3. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    4. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    5. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    6. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    7. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    8. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.
    9. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    10. Tetenov, Aleksey, 2012. "Statistical treatment choice based on asymmetric minimax regret criteria," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 157-165.
    11. Chen, Yanyan & Mandler, Timo & Meyer-Waarden, Lars, 2021. "Three decades of research on loyalty programs: A literature review and future research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 179-197.
    12. Tomas Bonavia & Josué Brox-Ponce, 2018. "Shame in decision making under risk conditions: Understanding the effect of transparency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    13. Massimiliano Amarante & Mario Ghossoub & Edmund Phelps, 2012. "Contracting for Innovation under Knightian Uncertainty," Cahiers de recherche 18-2012, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    14. Plante, Charles & Lassoued, Rim & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2017. "The Social Determinants of Cognitive Bias: The Effects of Low Capability on Decision Making in a Framing Experiment," SocArXiv u62cx, Center for Open Science.
    15. Wang, Peiwen & Chen, Minghua & Wu, Ji & Yan, Yuanyun, 2023. "Do peer effects matter in bank risk? Some cross-country evidence," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    16. Lévesque, Moren & Schade, Christian, 2002. "Intuitive optimizing for time allocation decisions in newly formed ventures," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2002,24, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    17. Youki Kohsaka & Grzegorz Mardyla & Shinji Takenaka & Yoshiro Tsutsui, 2017. "Disposition Effect and Diminishing Sensitivity: An Analysis Based on a Simulated Experimental Stock Market," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 189-201, April.
    18. Martin Kukuk & Stefan Winter, 2008. "An Alternative Explanation of the Favorite-Longshot Bias," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(2), pages 79-96, September.
    19. Schmidt, Ulrich & Friedl, Andreas & Lima de Miranda, Katharina, 2015. "Social comparison and gender differences in risk taking," Kiel Working Papers 2011, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    20. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:10:y:2007:i:4:p:273-289. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.