Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 5


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 4
CHAPTER 2 The Evaluation Process 2.1 Overview The GSM evaluation process is presented as a series of seven steps. The steps allow users to weigh their evaluation criteria and then identify and quantitatively contrast candidate security measures for their ferry system operation. In addition to evaluation criteria, other considerations in identifying and contrasting GSMs include applicability, costs, pre- and co-requisites, and strengths and weaknesses. Table 1 displays the categories and sub-categories of GSMs included in the accompanying tool. These GSM categories are not addressed equally. For example, while lists of "fencing/barriers" and "intruder sensors" are relatively comprehensive in their address of applicable technologies, the list of "screening" measures is much less comprehensive, largely because of the developmen- tal level of many of these technologies. A dozen or so different screening technologies for trace detection are not included because their current use is primarily in laboratories or as prototype or demonstration field units. The seven steps for evaluation of these GSMs are shown in Figure 1 and summarized below. Further details regarding the tool that accompanies these steps are provided in Chapter 3. 2.2 The Seven Steps Step 1: Enter weights GSMs may be evaluated using many different criteria (e.g., achieving regulatory compliance or applicability to a specific threat type). The importance of different groups of criteria depends on the user's objectives. Worksheet 1 of the Excel file provides several different groups of evaluation criteria. The users weigh the importance of these criteria from 0 to 5 based on their needs and vulnerabilities. Zeros can be entered as the weight of evaluation criteria that are of no interest. Step 2: Sort by value User-entered weights of evaluation criteria (entered in Step 1) and the relative applicability ranks for each security measure (i.e., provided in Worksheet 2) are used to automatically cal- culate relative valuation of each security measure. Relative valuations are calculated in value, or "utils," for each evaluation criteria group. To develop a short list of GSMs for further eval- uation, the user sorts GSMs based on utils in Worksheet 2. GSMs that have the greatest num- ber of utils are recorded by the user on paper to develop a list for further evaluation. Step 3: Edit data The paper list of GSMs with the most utils (obtained in Step 2) is further assessed based on char- acterization of the GSMs. Listed GSMs are looked up in Worksheet 3, and the characterization 5

OCR for page 4
6 Part I: Guide for Evaluating Security Measures for the U.S. Ferry System Table 1. Categorization of GSMs. GSM Categories and Sub-Categories # of GSMs Fencing/Barriers Retractable vehicle barriers/gates 5 Fixed vehicle deterrent with pedestrian access 4 Fixed, both vehicle and pedestrian deterrent 5 Access Control Credentials 13 Locks 3 System Control 3 Intruder Sensors Perimeter (doors & windows, walls & fences, and buried) 13 Volume sensors motion detectors 9 Monitoring Lighting 3 CCTV/video 7 Procedural/Low Cost 5 Waterside Security Surface 4 Underwater 5 Screening Passengers and Cargo 7 Trace Detection 14 Human Observation All Areas 3 Waterside 2 STEP 1 SHEET 1 Enter Evaluation Weights weights Enter weights for evaluation criteria. STEP 2 SHEET 2 STEP 5 Sort by Valuations (Utils) Re-sort value Sort GSMs by by value STEP 6 SHEET 5 valuations (utils) and Enter Costs develop a list of GSMs costs Enter costs and assess for further evaluation. requisites. STEP 3 SHEET 3 STEP 7 SHEET 6 Edit Characterization Sort by Costs/Util data Review and update cost/ Sort GSMs by cost/util characterization of value and assess strengths and GSMs. weaknesses. STEP 4 SHEET 4 Edit Applicability Ranks data Review and update applicability ranking of GSMs. Figure 1. GSM evaluation steps and worksheet pages.

OCR for page 4
Chapter 2: The Evaluation Process 7 information is reviewed to determine if any GSMs should be removed from the paper list because either the measure has already been implemented or the measure cannot be reason- ably implemented for technical reasons. Examples of conditions that may cause removal of some options include ground surfaces entirely covered by asphalt or concrete, which would prevent effective use of buried fiber optic intruder sensors, or limited space, which could pre- vent construction of efficient earthen barriers. (Note that cost should not be considered at this stage of the evaluation.) Step 4: Edit data The paper list of GSMs developed in Step 2 and refined in Step 3 is used to identify rows in Worksheet 4 that should be reviewed and adjusted as needed. Applicability ranks from 0 to 3 to indicate how well a specific GSM meets the various evaluation criteria (described in Work- sheet 1). These rankings are subjective, but are unlikely to differ from the ranking provided by more than one unit when the evaluation criteria are similarly understood. Step 5: Re-sort by value The user returns to Worksheet 2 to sort GSMs again with the adjusted information entered in Steps 3 and 4. Top GSMs based on number of utils are listed on paper for further evaluation. Step 6: Enter costs The next step in evaluating the short list is to update the cost-related data in Worksheet 5 to reflect the projected needs with respect to system size and to reflect any pre- or co-requisites that may need to be implemented. Concurrently determine comparable units for cost com- parisons between rows (e.g., full implementation at all relevant sites in the facility) and adjust cost data based on updated information. Note that the cost data provided in the worksheet are rough estimates that are often based on a small sampling of costs; thus, they provide only a rough cost range (i.e., within an order of magnitude). In some cases, the cost range repre- sents substantial differences in capability that are shown in one row because they employ the same technology. For example, IMS screening trace detectors have a cost range listed as $7,000 to $34,000, which represents the approximate costs of small hand-held units up through con- tinuous monitoring systems able to detect a greater variety of agents. In some cases, the user should create new rows to represent variations in measures with the same technology by overwriting rows that are not on the short list for further evaluation. When it is decided to replace a row's contents, changes should be made in Worksheet 3 to describe specific GSM characteristics, in Worksheet 4 to record applicability ranks, and in Worksheet 5 for cost data and requisite information. References provided in Worksheet 5 can be used to begin cost assessments. Step 7: Sort by cost/value After cost data have been updated in the short list, cost per util is calculated in Worksheet 6. The user can then sort by cost per util to further prioritize the short list, with the lowest cost per util suggesting the largest security improvement per dollar. The user should carefully assess strengths and weaknesses of the security measures. Further research to expand under- standing of strengths, weaknesses, variations, and costs may be needed. Suppliers should be contacted for specific information, product demonstrations, and on-site equipment trials. Other organizations, particularly the U.S. Coast Guard and Captain of the Port, should also be consulted regarding selection of the final options.