byl_728x90_1
logo-s
728x90-gungrabbersfearhim
          
          

Preparedness and Response

The latest posts from Preparedness and Response

The first of my deep(ish) dive into the THIRA process is going to focus on setting the state for the conversation. As I mentioned last week, the CPG 201 process is a four-step assessment of both risks and capabilities, specifically:
  1. Identification of threats and hazards of concern
  2. Additional scenario development of those threats and hazards
  3. Development of Core Capability targets, based on those threats and hazards and separately developed desired outcomes
  4. Apply the results, including assessment of resources required to meet those targets
Please note that I will not be spending a lot of time on the text of CPG 201. My point in this discussion is not to nitpick the phrasing, but rather to look at the process holistically and identify the good aspects and areas where (I think) it could be used better.

A second side-note that may help provide context for this series has to do with the evolution of the guidance. As I mentioned in the first post, and as anyone who looks at the guidance documents, will see that we're currently using CPG 201 second edition. The first edition was slightly different, with a five-step process and no capability assessment:
  1. Identification of threats and hazards of concern
  2. Additional scenario development of those threats and hazards
  3. Development of desired outcomes for the Core Capabilities; assessment of impacts from threats and hazards on Core Capabilities
  4. Establishment of Core Capability targets
  5. Apply the results 
The major functional difference between the first and second editions, leaving out combining steps 3 and 4 into a single step since the process followed remained the same, was the addition of an explicit required resource assessment to the final step.

During and immediately following the first round of THIRAs there was a lot of work being done to develop what was initially referred to as CPG 202, which was being drafted as a linked but separate resource requirement assessment process. The process outlined was three-steps, which amounted to:
  1. Estimate the resources you need to meet your targets
  2. Estimate the resources you have
  3. Identify the gap/surplus/sustainment needs for each Core Capability
When I get to the resource requirement assessment discussion, a few days from now, I'll dig deeper into the pros and cons of the draft 3-step process compared to the single step included in the THIRA. The main thing I wanted to do with this post was provide a little more background data to round out the conversation as it gets started.
Author: Joel Palmer
Posted: July 27, 2015, 1:00 pm

Rating 1 star lowest, 5 stars highest
Click stars to vote for Preparedness and Response


Comments are closed.