The final article I’ve written concerning the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) will analyze the three previous course of action (COA) plans and rate them against each other. The numerical values will be weighted and analyzed to mathematically come up with a solid, objective look at the best way to move forward. It is important to once again explain that the goal of this discussion is to save as many students as possible during a worst case active shooter (AS) situation. In this vein, one must be willing to remain objective in their analysis of the options and even be willing to accept new ideas. If not, there is simply no place for debate or discussion.
In our COA analysis, we graded each option against six separate criteria: Cost of Life By AS, Fratricide, Ability to Neutralize AS, Speed to Neutralize AS, Fiscal Cost, and Training Requirements. The order that they are listed here is in the level of importance, from highest to lowest. Obviously, the most important issue is to somehow retard the ability of the AS to kill students. In this same regard, it is equally important that we minimize fratricide. I felt that the next two weighted options were the ability and speed in which the AS could be dealt with, as there is a direct relationship to these two factors and the overall loss of student life. Finally, there is the overall cost and training. While these are both important factors to consider, they do not directly affect the overall goal. Therefore, there is no weight given to their value.
We will now look at each of the criteria and evaluate them against the others.
Cost of Life By AS: Under this criteria COA #3 gives us the best option. The wargaming process showed us that COA #1 did little to protect those students who were not already in a classroom, and they would need to be essentially written-off as acceptable losses to the AS. COA #2 and COA #3 gave the best options in terms of saving students—but COA #1 only allowed for one armed guard which would make him a high priority target. If the guard were to be eliminated it would open up the school for the AS.
Fratricide: This criterion came out most notably against COA #2. In fact, it opens up a legitimate question as to whether or not there is an acceptable level of risk with this COA. This is a complete judgment call, but I would state that there is. Especially if we look at this through the lens of our mission requirement: To protect the maximum number of students. If a student is hit by someone attempting to take out the AS it is a serious problem. At the same time, how many more students will be saved because of this action? When evaluated in such a way, it must be allowed to be considered due to the overall impact of stopping the AS. However, its importance gives it such a bad ranking. Obviously, COA #1 came out best in this category as there is no violent action to spill over against the students.
Neutralize AS: In this category, COA #1 offers no real way to actually stop the AS and is based completely on running and hiding. COA #2 and #3 both offer this possibility, but the threat of having the single guard taken out by the AS brings the score down considerably. With COA #3, the odds of this occurring are insignificantly small.
Speed to Neutralize AS: As in the criterion above, this is directly tied to the overall damage that the AS is capable of inflicting. While COA #1 offers no ability to actually neutralize the AS, the capability of this COA to slow down the rampage may be significant enough to give a rating of two. While COA #2 offers a fair success rate, the fact that COA #3 disperses armed individuals throughout the school means that those individuals have a better chance of quickly identifying and reacting to the shooter, especially at larger campuses.
Fiscal Cost: The cost of COA #1 is so high I believe it can be articulated to be well outside the acceptable range. This is especially true considering the odds of the facilities ever being utilized for any real purpose. Additionally, the cost of COA #2 was incredibly high as well, over 360 percent higher than the cost of COA #3. It is unlikely that either COA #1 or #2 would be feasible.
Training Requirements: Training requirements, like fiscal cost, received no weightings as they were the least important overall. It is important to understand that statement, however. Without question, proper training is one of the most important factors no matter which COA is selected. Therefore, no matter which option is selected, it is assumed that the personnel will be properly trained. The question is: how much training will it require? In this case, COA #1 required the least amount of training as the teacher is essentially locking down their area. COA #2 requires a sizeable amount of training with COA #3 obviously requiring the most training.
The final action is to equalize the ratings and then apply the weightings. For this scenario, we need to invert the number ratings for four of the criteria. This turns the ranks from one being the worst to five being the best. Therefore, if the original number was ranked five it would become a one. In the figure below, these are highlighted in yellow. The adjusted numbers are seen in the second block. Finally, we add the weights to the rankings. The first two criteria rankings are multiplied by three, the second two are multiplied by two, and the last two receive no additional increase.
When all the math is applied, the best ranked COA is COA #3 with a ranking of 38, six points higher than the other two COAs which were tied at 32. In my estimation, this would make arming the teachers clearly the best choice out of the three options.
This, however, is not the final word in this discussion. But, I believe it is a good place from which to start. Shouldn’t we be discussing this subject to create an open-minded and emotionally detached methodology? Further, I will admit that I have never been a Chief Financial Officer—my cost analysis may be incorrect. But FM 101-5 addresses this as well. “The staff must be unbiased and open-minded in evaluating proposed options. Staff members can quickly identify COAs obviously not feasible in their particular areas of expertise. They can also quickly decide if they can modify a COA to accomplish the requirement or eliminate it immediately.” I believe that we can come up with a logical answer that can mitigate several of these issues, but it will take experts in all fields to come together and work out this process.
