Search

The report discusses the challenges posed by four types of threats -terrorist attacks, cyber attacks, extreme weather and social unrest- on the SmartResilience case studies. The way this analysis was conducted was by assessing these threats using a 5x5 framework matrix. The two axes of the matrix were phases (understand risks, anticipate/prepare, absorb/withstand, respond/recover, adapt/learn) and dimensions (system/physical, information/data, organizational/business, societal/political, cognitive/decision-making). Each individual matrix block was discussed by subject experts who identified specific challenges and implications for each matrix element and rated its relevance (high, medium, low). In terms of the results, the system/physical dimension received the highest number of important challenges. Overall, the most important singular element was to understand risks in the organizational/business dimension. The least importance was attributed to the adapt/learn phase.

This report summarizes the results from the work in Task 1.3 of the SmartResilience project. Within the Work Package "Establishing the project baseline and the common framework", Task 1.3 contributes to a better understanding of the indicators for resilience assessment by examining the actual needs from the ones responsible for such an assessment.

The main goal of task 5.1 according to the grant agreement has been to agree upon a common approach between the developers of the methodology and the end-users. Practically, it means that the objective of the task was to test it and provide feedback from the end-user on the early version of the methodology developed in T3.2. To accomplish this goal, the following was done: 1. A survey was performed with the case study owners (where the goal was to establish their baseline at the owners’ side). with respect to e.g. risk/resilience assessment, relevant threats and vulnerabilities, and possible cascading effects. Existing methods used for assessing risk/resilience were identified, along with knowledge about selected new concepts such as the resilience matrix and the resilience curve. The most common threats are the events related to natural hazards, followed by malicious attacks such as terrorist attacks and cyber-attacks. 2. An interactive workshop was organized with participation from the case study owners and the methodology developers (The goal was to present the new resilience assessment methodology and initiate its application to the case studies). During the workshop, the case study owners applied the methodology to answer the following questions: • What are the relevant and real issues and conventional indicators that are applicable to the respective scenarios in the case studies to measure the resilience of the SCI? • Which sources of big data can be used for defining possible indicators for each case study? • What are the dependencies and interdependencies foreseen in each case study? 3. The inputs from the case studies were consolidated in a common template. In this template, the case study owners answered the above questions and in the end, provided general feedback on the methodology. What was good? 1. Results are provided for all-but-one case study. 2. The end-users broadly understood the methodology. 3. They identified over 230 issues and 270 indicators basis the methodology for respective smart critical infrastructures. The issues and indicators were suggested based on measures applied in the case studies, relevant regulations and standards. In addition, the end-users suggested possible big data available in their case studies to derive smart and new resilience indicators. Further, they identified the dependencies and interdependencies and finally, summed up their feedback on the methodology. What is still open? 1. Completeness of the collected issues and indicators needs to be addressed, i.e., that there are enough issues and indicators to assess the resilience of the SCI 2. Quality of issues and indicators 3. Development of the parameters to measure the functionality of SCI over time 4. Specific aspects about the understanding of the issues and indicators amongst the case study partners. This area needs further attention and clarification, e.g. through training of the case study partners. An additional interactive workshop could be beneficial. The findings of this report, including clarification of issues and indicators, were presented and discussed in the workshops and meetings in Budapest on April 24-25, 2017 This report from T5.1 provides feedback for T 3.2 to improve the methodology(T3.2) in order to make it sufficiently clear for the end-users to apply. The issues and indicators (see Figure 1) provided here (and in T4.1) are important for assessing resilience, using the methodology in T3.2. In addition, some of the indicators may be relevant parameters for assessing the functionality of critical infrastructures (in T3.3). However, to assess the resilience in T5.3 -5.11, the completeness and quality of the issues and indicator still needs to be addressed. This may be facilitated in T3.3 and T4.1. Moreover, the dependencies and interdependencies findings are useful for T2.3 and T5.12 for the analysis of cascading effects.