Strengths and Weaknesses of Risk Management as the Primary Tool for US Military Strategic, Tactical and Operational Decision Making: Will the Enterprise Risk Assessment Model, Composite Risk Management and Associated Techniques Provide the Predicted Benefits?

Risk management provides the most important single framework for both strategic and tactical decision making across the US Military. The annual statement of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Congress now uses notions of likelihood and consequence to assess the nation’s military preparedness. At the same time, pressure from the US General Accounting Office and the Quadrennial Defense Review, has encouraged the Department of Defense to restructure its work around an Enterprise Risk Assessment Model (ERAM). At an operational level, Composite Risk Management (CRM) has been introduced as the main framework for decision making. For example, Field Manual 5-19 extends the scope of risk assessment to cover training exercises, combat and peacekeeping operations, as well as the hazards associated with off-duty activities including terrorist attack and the use of privately owned vehicles. This paper argues that risk management is not a panacea. For example, it is unclear whether the Department of Defense can achieve the culture shift that is necessary before risk analysis might ‘revolutionize’ their business strategy. At a tactical level, there is also a danger that enemy forces could learn to exploit systematic biases in decisions that are informed by particular risk assessment techniques. At an operational level, it is unclear whether leaders in the field can accurately collate and then communicate the products of a hazard analysis given the operational constraints of FRAGOs (Fragmentary Orders). Finally, there is a high-level concern over confirmation and attribution biases. These arise when the proponents of techniques like Composite Risk Management argue that adverse events would have been avoided if only personnel had used the new techniques. Such judgments under-estimate how difficult it is to apply new risk management methods in the hostile operational environments that often confront military personnel.