An analytic-deliberative process for the selection and deployment of radiation detection systems for shipping ports and border crossings
Author(s)Shattan, Michael B
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Nuclear Science and Engineering.
George E. Apostolakis.
MetadataShow full item record
Combating the threat of nuclear smuggling through shipping ports and border crossings has been recognized as a national priority in defending the US against nuclear terrorism. In light of the SAFE Port act of 2006, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) has been charged with the responsibility of providing the Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) with the capability to conduct 100% radiological screening of all containers entering the country. In an attempt to meet this mandate, the DNDO has conducted a typical government acquisition procedure to develop and acquire radiation portal monitors (RPMs) capable of passive gamma-ray spectroscopy that would allow 100% radiological screening without detrimental affects on the stream of commerce through the terminals. However, the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) supporting the DNDO decision-making process has been criticised and has delayed the program significantly. We propose an Analytic-Deliberative Process (ADP) as an alternative to CBA for this application. We conduct a case study with four DNDO stakeholders using the ADP proposed by the National Research Council in the context of environmental remediation and adapted by the MIT group and compare the results to those derived from DNDO's CBA. The process involves value modeling using an objectives hierarchy and the analytic hierarchy process. Value functions are derived and expected outcomes for the decision options are elicited from the stakeholders. The process results in a preference ranking of the decision options in order of value to each stakeholder. The analytical results are then used to structure a deliberation in which the four stakeholders use both the analytical results and any pertinent information outside the analysis to form a consensus.(cont.) The final decision of both the CBA and ADP models show good agreement and demonstrate the validity of both methods. However, the ADP format is better at explicitly capturing and quantifying subjective influences affecting the final decision. This facilitates discussion and leads to faster consensus building.
Thesis (S.M.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Nuclear Science and Engineering, 2008.Includes bibliographical references (p. 53-55).
DepartmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Nuclear Science and Engineering.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Nuclear Science and Engineering.