Throughout this monthly column, there has been an underlying assumption that the need for increased resilience or security is obvious. What if the need, or, more likely, the extent of the problem is not obvious? This is where risk analysis and risk management come into the picture. Simply put, risk analysis is determining the likelihood of an event occurring and the consequences of any such event, while risk management involves developing plans to minimize or avoid negative impacts. Risk analysis and management are intrinsically linked and used together to evaluate and plan for adverse events.
 When thinking about risk analysis, the mind usually goes to either financial risks or physical/cybersecurity. But risk analysis goes way beyond those topics to include anything that could disrupt the everyday use of a building or the operation of a company. The events that may cause an operational interruption include natural hazards, such as wind, earthquakes, floods, fires (building-specific or wildfires), extreme heat or cold, climate change, and security. In order to design a truly safe and resilient building, one must consider the risks posed by each viable threat and the potential impact on building operations if such an event occurs.
 The minimum threat that must be considered due to natural hazards can be evaluated based on the building code. Higher levels of threat can be considered based on the resilience goals of the owner or jurisdiction. ASCE 7 provides design-level loading for snow, wind, seismic events, tornados, and tsunamis. These loads are considered to be extreme in that the likelihood of loads at these levels occurring in any given year is very small. These load levels are Intentionally recognized as having low probability because, as part of the building code, ASCE 7 is concerned primarily about life safety, and property protection is a secondary consideration. Designing for higher loads is possible if you want to add additional capacity to a building and, in fact, is mandatory for Occupancy Category IV structures.
 However, what if, instead of designing only for high-level, low-probability loads, you also want to explicitly design for enhanced performance at lower, more likely load levels? This is certainly possible, but little guidance exists as to what level of hazard would be appropriate or how to determine the design parameters for those higher probability events.
 Another approach is outlined by ASHRAE Guideline 29, “Guideline for the Risk Management of Public Health and Safety in Buildings.” This document lays out an overall approach to risk management for buildings, provides recommendations for the design of new and existing buildings, and, very importantly, discusses operation and maintenance issues. The reason operation and maintenance are so crucial to managing risk is that improperly operated and maintained equipment can negate the design intent. That is, no matter how well-designed and initially installed, if a system is not maintained, it will eventually fail to meet the design intent. For example, improperly fitted filters that allow air to bypass means unfiltered air will be introduced into the building. Another essential aspect of the risk management process is commissioning when the building is new or when changes are made to the equipment. Commissioning ensures the building is functioning as designed when it goes into service.
 To answer the question asked at the beginning of this column, yes, you can use risk analysis to determine the extent of the problems you need to address, and there is some limited guidance available.
 The documents I’ve referenced in this column either provide loading information or guidance on developing a program to manage risk in the facility. I have yet to discuss how to quantify risk in a meaningful manner. This will be discussed in a future column, but, in the meantime, generating awareness of the role of risk assessment when producing resilient buildings will assist both designers and owners to define and achieve their resilience goals.