The Paradoxes of Military Risk Assessment: 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 strategic, tactical and operational decision making across the US Military. Composite Risk Management (CRM) has been introduced to guide decision making across the US Army in training, combat and peacekeeping operations as well as off-duty activities. The Department of Defence’s Enterprise Risk Assessment Model (ERAM) provides a framework for acquisition and procurement policy. Rather than considering the hazards associated with particular operations, planners evaluate project risks in terms of the likelihood and consequences of failing to meet service requirements on time and to cost. The annual statement of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Congress now also uses notions of likelihood and consequence to assess the nation’s military preparedness. However, risk management is not a panacea for the problems that affect military operations. 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 on the battlefield. The following pages, therefore, identify some of the paradoxes that complicate the application of risk management to guide military decision making.