One of the biggest problems in any inter-agency gathering is the use of terms. Throughout this QHSR I have seen terms like risk, consequence, threat used in confusing and, sometimes, inappropriate ways. Here are two examples from this section:
- “What are the likelihoods and consequences associated with each identified threat or hazard?”
- “…assessments of frequency, consequence, and risk are intended to represent our best knowledge within a factor of ten.”
Consequences come neither from threats nor hazards. Consequences occur as a result of a threat or hazard exploiting a vulnerability. Risk is determined by examining--separately--the elements of consequence, threat (and tactic), and vulnerability. Poor use of terminology results in confusing and potentially unreliable results, like the kind that occurs in the intelligence world as a result of circular reporting. The value of a single piece of information can be incorrectly magnified or diminished resulting in a skewed result.
I wholeheartedly concur with the direction taken in the statement below:
“…the methodology should be simple and transparent to make the results easy to communicate to decision-makers and stakeholders alike.”
Homeland security is a bottom-up effort executed at the grassroots-level. Therefore, there needs to be a shared lexicon of terms which mean the same at the local, county/parish, state, and federal levels of government. Therefore, a disciplined approach to the use of risk terminology must be adopted for communications and efforts to be effective and efficient.
Why the contribution is important
To communicate effectively it is vital to ensure terms and their use have the same meaning across the broad spectrum of users and agencies.
Currently tagged as:
risk analysis that limits itself only to dollars becomes a financial modeling game when the real physical variables are ignored. I think the lowering of the value of a human life by $1,000,000 in the legislation on pollution by the prior administration was an excellent example of such game playing that made it harder to justify pollution controls.
Setting requirements on doing modeling that force making physical and social variables explicit is also a possible standard for the risk area.
The working group - with representatives across all DHS Components worked provided critical insight into the divers interpretation of the terms across all areas and harmonized a concise definition for various risk related terms. This group is still in existence and is open to receive recommended terms that are needed to support this specific community. Other communities of interest (intelligence, immigration, technology, etc.) are also working on subject specific terminology definitions to support the homeland security community.
The example that I oft site is the word secure as applied to the US military ... The Navy hears lock; The Army hears guard; The Air Force hears purchase; and the Marine hears destroy! One simple word in the same armed force has such different meaning. I do not see a policy making it different.