| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
-
IMPROVER D2.2 Report of criteria for evaluating resilience
- 2016
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In the recent years, the focus has moved from critical infrastructure protection to that of resilience. But how do we know whether a critical infrastructure is resilient or not, how can it be evaluated, measured and enhanced? Drawing on, combining and developing the ideas of the existing literature and practices, the current report develops a holistic, easy-to-use and computable methodology to evaluate critical infrastructure resilience, called Critical Infrastructure Resilience Index (CIRI). The methodology is applicable to all types of critical infrastructure, including a possibility to tailor it to the specific needs of different sectors, facilities and hazard scenarios. The proposed methodology is especially suitable for organizational and technological resilience evaluation, but permits including also elements of societal resilience indicators to the evaluations. The methodology is based on four levels of hierarchically organized indicators. Level 1 consists of the phases well known from the so-called crisis management cycle. Under these phases, we find sets of Level 2 rather generic indicators. Thus under level 1 ‘Prevention’, for instance, we may find a Level 2 indicator such as ‘Resilient design’, further divided into Level 3 more detailed indicators such as ‘Physical robustness’, ‘Cyber robustness’, ‘Redundancy’, ‘Modularity’, and ‘Independency’. The task is to study these indicators on Level 4 in the context of concrete critical infrastructure facilities and hazard scenarios, that is, applying Level 3 indicators into concrete circumstances. The methodology then permits to transfer quantitative, semi-quantitative and qualitative evaluations of individual sector-specific resilience indicators into uniform metrics, based on process maturity levels. This in turn makes it possible to give a specific critical infrastructure, or its part, a resilience value on the scale 0-5. While the real resilience value becomes clear only when one engages in the analysis of several indicators, the methodology can be used also as a step-by-step measurement and development tool for resilience, without necessary immediately engaging in time-consuming total resilience analysis. The user of this methodology is supposed to be the operator of critical infrastructure, or part of it, in the spirit of self-auditing. In case it would be implemented in a wider scale, in cooperation between the operators and authorities, it would give the authorities a holistic picture about the respective society’s critical infrastructure resilience. In this report, we draw a concise picture of the methodology and illustrate how this methodology could be applied to a specific infrastructure and hazard scenario.
|
|
| 4. |
- Reitan, Nina Kristine, et al.
(författare)
-
IMPROVER D2.3 Evaluation of resilience concepts applied to criticalinfrastructure using existing methodologies
- 2016
-
Rapport (refereegranskat)abstract
- The current Deliverable of the IMPROVER H2020 project is the third and last in the project’s Work Package 2. While it draws heavily on previous work and deliverables, it shows the direction for the following workpackages, helping in their task to develop an approach for critical infrastructure (CI) resilience assessment which is applicable across Europe and to different infrastructure sectors as well as being compatible with the EU Risk Assessment guidelines. The current report combines the work done most notably in Task 2.4 and Task 2.5 as defined in the project’s work plan. These tasks aim to evaluate the contribution of individual resilience concepts to the resilience of critical infrastructure and to compare a number of existing methodologies for implementation of resilience concepts to critical infrastructure. In short, a set of existing, relevant, resilience analysis or assessment approaches were identified that. Based on well-defined criteria, three of the approaches were selected for more detailed comparison. In Chapter 1, these three approaches are concisely presented and reviewed. In Chapter 2, a set of several individual indicators that are widely used in resilience analysis are selected to be used as ‘test’ indicators to discuss their use vis-à-vis the selected three approaches. Chapter 3 presents four fictional scenarios, based on the projects living labs and representing different sectors of critical infrastructure in different countries. In Chapter 4, the use of the selected set of indicators is illustrated both vis-à-vis the three selected approaches and the four scenarios. Chapter 5 goes deeper in this discussion, and demonstrates how each of the approaches could be used against the four scenarios. Finally, in Chapter 6 the three critical infrastructure resilience analysis or assessment approaches are evaluated and their relative performance compared, identifying their pros and cons based on the author’s experiences from using the methodologies for the illustrations and demonstration. A more detailed, qualitative, comparison of the functioning of the three methodologies against the chosen criteria is also given. The feedback from illustrations and demonstrations of the three selected methodologies shows that all approaches have pros and cons. Moreover, there seems not to be any strict objective way to evaluate the approaches, but much depends on what one wants to do with a resilience analysis or assessment approach, and how much one is ready put effort and time to it, and who is doing it. These notions lead to the conclusion that, first, in the subsequent phases the IMPROVER project should aim at combining – in so far it is possible and commensurable – the identified/perceived pros while avoiding the identified/perceived cons. Second, the IMPROVER project should aim at developing a CI resilience assessment approach which can utilise the strengths of the analysis methods shown taking into account the idiosyncrasies of different type of CI and its operators. Such an assessment approach should take the form of a framework that combines a resilience analysis and a resilience evaluation methodology and is compatible with the EU Risk Assessment Guidelines.
|
|
| 5. |
- Rød, Bjarte, et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluation of resilience assessment methodologies
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Safety and Reliability - Theory and Applications - Proceedings of the 27th European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2017. - CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742 : CRC Press/Balkema. - 9781138629370 ; , s. 1039-1052
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- There are a wide range of different frameworks and methodologies for analysing Critical Infrastructure (CI) resilience, covering organisational, technological and social resilience. However, there is a lack of a clear methodology combining these three resilience domains into one framework. The final goal of the ongoing EU-project IMPROVER, ‘Improved risk evaluation and implementation of resilience concepts to Critical Infrastructure,’ is to develop one single improved and easy-to-use critical infrastructure resilience analysis tool which will be applicable within all resilience domains and to all types of critical infrastructure. This article presents part of this work, in which IMPROVER comprehensively evaluated, by demonstration and comparison, a selection of existing resilience methodologies in order to integrate their best features into the new methodology. The selected methodologies were The Benchmark Resilience Tool (BRT) (Lee et al., 2013), Guidelines for Critical Infrastructures Resilience Evaluation (CIRE) (Bertocchi et al., 2016) and the Critical Infrastructure Resilience Index (CIRI). The latter was developed within the consortium (Pursiainen et al., 2017). The results show that it is hard to evaluate and compare the different methodologies considering that the methodologies are not aiming to achieve the same thing. However, this evaluation shows that all the methodologies have pros and cons, and that the IMPROVER project should aim at combining, in so far as is possible and commensurable, the identified pros while avoiding the identified cons into a Critical Infrastructure resilience assessment framework compatible with the current guidelines for risk assessment in the Member States. © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, London.
|
|
