Operations Risk Management Planning Template for Underway Replenishment

1. Operations Risk Management Planning Templatefor Underway Replenishment LCDR Jeffrey P. Cole, USN Dr Frank Noonan, WPI

2. Underway Replenishment (UNREP) • At sea, re-supply of critical items is necessary for operational readiness. • Dangerous activity. • Multiplicity of factors influence feasibility. • Go-No Go decision.

3. US NAVY Mishap Data • Two collisions this FY • Mishap rate this FY > twice the Mishap rate from 1996 - 2000 • DOD property damages $101 million for FY00; FY96-FY99 $72 million • Fatalities 4; Major injuries 169 (FY 00) • Fatalities 15; Major injuries 897 (FY96-00)

4. Operational Risk Management Process • Risk Identification • Risk Assessment • Risk Evaluation • Implementation • Monitor

5. Levels for ORM • On the Run • Deliberate • In-Depth

6. Scoring Model Methodology • Risk Index =  w i Risk Factor i • Risk Index Scale GA R -----------I---------- I----------

7. Design Methodology • Prepare for Session with SMEs • Access Risk related Historical data • Navy Safety Center, Statistics Division • USCG, MSIS Data Base • Develop preliminary list of Necessary ‘GO’ Conditions • Develop preliminary Hierarchical Risk Inference Tree • Organize SMEs • Illustrate the End Product

8. Illustrative ORM End ProductMEASURING RISK WITH THE GREEN AMBER RED (GAR) SURF OPERATIONS RISK ASSESSMENT -"CROSSING THE BAR" • The parameters listed below must be met before the 36' AMBAR may be operated in surf conditions for the purpose of executing a SAR case (or performing training). These parameters are identified in ALCOGARDONE 002/99 and include: • 1. A qualified RHI Surf Coxswain is operating the boat, and; • 2. The36'AMBARistheonlycapableresourceavailable,and; • 3. A backup Helo or MLB is en route (must actually be on scene during training), and; • 4. The mission is to save life exclusively (unless training), and, • 5. The surf is on average four feet but does not exceed 6 feet.

9. Illustrative ORM End Product SCORE Supervision (Coxswain Experience): 6 5 4 3 2 1 ________ Qualified Above Average Exceptional    Crew Selection (Experience): 6 5 4 3 2 1 ________ Qualified Above Average Exceptional Crew Fitness/Fatigue (u/w hours in 6-81 seas/other limitations): 6 5 4 3 2 1 _________ 6 HRS 4-5 HRS 3-4 HRS 2-3 HRS 1-2 HRS < I HR TOTAL

10. Design Methodology: Six Step Process for working with SMEs Step 1 Mishap Narratives Step 3 Construct Risk Factor Inference Tree Step 2 Prerequisites for ‘GO’ Step 4 Construct Factor Scales Step 5 Assess Factor Weights Step 6 Calibrate Model

11. Step 1: Establish Contextual Understanding for the ORM Application • Review Historical UNREP Mishap Data • Frequency, Severity, Causality • Request Structured Storytelling on UNREPS • Successes, Mishaps, Near Misses

12. Step 2: Develop List of Prerequisitesfor a ‘GO’ decision. • For UNREP: • Sea State < 5. • Not located within a VTSS, fairway, narrow channel and sufficient water depth. • Low congestion from other vessels. • Safety Brief conducted. • Winds/Seas < ± 30o off bow. • Propulsion/Steering System Operationally Ready. • Positive Slack for task time.

13. Step 3: Construct the Risk Factor Inference Tree • Major categories • Task Difficulty • Environmental • Equipment Readiness • Manpower Readiness

14. Step 3 (cont.): Task Difficulty Sub-factors • Time alongside. • # of receiving stations. • # of whole ship tasks.

15. Step 3 (cont.): Environmental Sub-factors • Day/Night • Sea State ( 0-4) • Weather • Wind • Visibility

16. Step 3 (cont.): Equipment Readiness Sub-factors • Reliability of Equipment for UNREP (based on failure rate) • Preventive Maintenance System (how well it passed recent PMS) • Level of Acceptable Equipment Substitutes

17. Step 3 (cont.): Manpower Readiness Sub-factors • Training Level of UNREP Crews (based on % of qualified crew members) • Experience Level & Fatigue Level • CO, UNREP Crews, Helmsman, Conning Officer, Aft Steering Quartermaster, Safety Officer, Safety Observers. • Response Time of Ship’s Crews to Emergencies

18. Step 4: Construct Scales for Risk Factors • Emphasize the Use of Objective Data whenever possible. (e.g. Current/Forecasted Wind Conditions 5 4 3 2 1 >25kts 20-25kts 15-20kts 10-15kts <10kts ) • Make Subjective Scales Meaningful with specific examples of Max and Min points. • Use a Common Scale (i.e. 5, 7 or 9 point scales). • Difficulty in scaling can imply a prerequisite. • Convex/concave scales require decomposition.

19. Step 5: Determine Weights for Risk Factors • Framing: A UNREP related mishap just occurred. Provide best guess on the relative likelihood of each factor being the cause. • Use Hierarchical Structures • Rank order factors • Pairwise comparisons.

20. UNREP’s Relative Factor Weights • Major categories • Task Difficulty 16% • Environmental 10% • Equipment Readiness 33% • Manpower Readiness 40%

21. UNREP’s Relative Factor Weights • Training Level of UNREP Crews 55% • Experience Level • CO 17% • UNREP Crews, Helmsman, Conning Officer, 18% Aft Steering Quartermaster, Safety Officer, Safety Observers. • Response Time of Ship’s Crews to Emergencies 10%

22. UNREP’s Relative Factor Weights • Time alongside. 35% • # of receiving stations. 25% • # of whole ship tasks. 40%

23. UNREP’s Relative Factor Weights • Day/Night 25% • Sea State ( 0-4) 30% • Weather • Wind 17% • Visibility 28%

24. UNREP’s Relative Factor Weights • Reliability of Equipment for UNREP 65% (based on failure rate) • Preventive Maintenance System 12.5% (how well it passed recent PMS) • Level of Acceptable Equipment Substitutes 22.5%

25. Scoring Model Methodology • Risk Index =  w i Risk Factor i • Risk Index Scale GA R -----------I---------- I----------

26. Step 6: Calibrate Model for Go/No Go Threshold • UNREP Scenarios : SMEs construct narratives for a set of borderline Go/No Go UNREPs. • SMEs score risk factors for each scenario. • Calculate and average risk scores for scenarios.