Abstraction-decomposition space for critical infrastructure systems: A framework for infrastructure planning and resilience policies

• Autorzy: Sellevåg Stig Rune

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.35467/sdq/146789

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The objective of this work has been to propose a framework that will aid governments with the development of more coherent and effective infrastructure planning and resilience policies through a system-of-systems approach that is grounded in theory for complex sociotechnical systems. The framework has been developed by using a work domain analysis (WDA). The WDA consists of an abstraction hierarchy analysis and a part-whole decomposition. Together, the abstraction hierarchy and the part-whole description form the abstraction-decomposition space (ADS) for which the system constraints apply. By imposing constraints, the WDA promotes design for adaptation where actors within the system are allowed to adapt their behaviour as they find appropriate without violating the system’s constraints. The proposed ADS consists of five levels of abstraction and four levels of decomposition. By applying the ADS, it will aid decision making related to the overall purposes of the critical infrastructure system, the values and priority measures that are used to assess the system’s progress towards the functional purposes, as well as formulation of infrastructure needs that are necessary to achieve the functional purposes. The framework is formative in the sense that it reveals how work can be done in the critical infrastructure system. This is important because it is not feasible to prescribe, describe and risk assess all possibilities for action that are available in complex sociotechnical systems, especially when dealing with unforeseen events. Future research should focus on finding science-based yet useful in practice ways for establishing values and priority measures that encompass sustainability issues and resilience standards.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

resilience; adaptation; critical infrastructures; national security; work domain analysis

• Wydawca: Akademia Sztuki Wojennej
• Czasopismo: Security and Defence Quarterly
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: Vol. 39, No. 3
• Strony: 6--20
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 50 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Sellevåg Stig Rune

• Total Defence Division, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI), Norway

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2309-8464

Bibliografia

• 1. Anderson, C.W., Santos, J.R. and Haimes, Y.Y. (2007) ‘A risk-based input–output methodology for measuring the effects of the August 2003 Northeast blackout’, Economic Systems Research, 19(2), pp. 183–204. doi: 10.1080/09535310701330233.
• 2. Aven, T. (2019) ‘The call for a shift from risk to resilience: What does it mean?’, Risk Analysis, 39(6), pp. 1196–1203. doi: 10.1111/risa.13247.
• 3. Bruneau, M., Chang, S.E., Eguchi, R.T., Lee, G.C., O’Rourke, T.D., Reinhorn, A.M., Shinozuka, M., Tierney, K., Wallace, W.A. and von Winterfeldt, D. (2003) ‘A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities’, Earthquake Spectra, 19(4), pp. 733–752. doi: 10.1193/1.1623497.
• 4. Burns, C.M., Bryant, D.J. and Chalmers, B.A. (2001) ‘Scenario mapping with work domain analysis’, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 45(4), pp. 424–428. doi: 10.1177/154193120104500434.
• 5. Busby, J.W., Baker, K., Bazilian, M.D., Gilbert, A.Q., Grubert, E., Rai, V., Rhodes, J.D., Shidore, S., Smith, C.A. and Webber, M.E. (2021) ‘Cascading risks: Understanding the 2021 winter blackout in Texas’, Energy Research & Social Science, 77, 102106. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102106.
• 6. Carhart, N. and Rosenberg, G. (2016) ‘A framework for characterising infrastructure interdependencies’, International Journal of Complexity in Applied Science and Technology, 1, pp. 35–60. doi: 10.1504/IJCAST.2016.10002359.
• 7. Carhart, N.J., Bouch, C., Walsh, C.L. and Dolan, T. (2016) ‘Applying a new concept for strategic performance indicators’, Infrastructure Asset Management, 3(4), pp. 143–153. doi: 10.1680/jinam.16.00016.
• 8. Cerè, G., Rezgui, Y. and Zhao, W. (2017) ‘Critical review of existing built environment resilience frameworks: Directions for future research’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 25, pp. 173–189. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.018.
• 9. Chang, S.E. (2009) ‘Infrastructure resilience to disasters’, The Bridge, 39, pp. 36–41.
• 10. Collins, A., Florin, M.-V. and Renn, O. (2020) ‘COVID-19 risk governance: Drivers, responses and lessons to be learned’, Journal of Risk Research, 23(7–8), pp. 1073–1082. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2020.1760332.
• 11. Cullen, P.J. and Reichborn-Kjennerud, E. (2017) MCDC countering hybrid warfare project: Understanding hybrid warfare. A multinational capability development campaign project. Available at: https://assets.publishing.serv... (Accessed: 15 March 2022).
• 12. Curt, C. and Tacnet, J.-M. (2018) ‘Resilience of critical infrastructures: Review and analysis of current approaches’, Risk Analysis, 38(11), pp. 2441–2458. doi: 10.1111/risa.13166.
• 13. Dolan, T. (2018) ‘Briefing: A systemic framework for infrastructure need assessment’, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Smart Infrastructure and Construction, 171(2), pp. 45–53. doi: 10.1680/jsmic.18.00006.
• 14. Dolan, T., Walsh, C.L., Bouch, C. and Carhart, N.J. (2016) ‘A conceptual approach to strategic performance indicators’, Infrastructure Asset Management, 3(4), pp. 132–142. doi: 10.1680/jinam.16.00015.
• 15. Dudenhoeffer, D.D., Permann, M.R. and Manic, M. (2006) ‘CIMS: A framework for infrastructure interdependency modeling and analysis’, Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference, 3–6 December 2006, pp. 478–485.
• 16. Esposito, S., Stojadinović, B., Babič, A., Dolšek, M., Iqbal, S., Selva, J., Broccardo, M., Mignan, A. and Giardini, D. (2020) ‘Risk-based multilevel methodology to stress test critical infrastructure systems’, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 26(1), 04019035. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000520.
• 17. European Commission (2020) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the resilience of critical entities. (COM(2020) 829 final). Brussels: European Commission.
• 18. FEMA (2019) 2019 National Threat and Hazard Identifiaction and Risk Assessment (THIRA). Overview and methodology. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Available at: https://www.fema.gov/sites/def... (Accessed: 15 March 2022).
• 19. Ghafur, S., Kristensen, S., Honeyford, K., Martin, G., Darzi, A. and Aylin, P. (2019) ‘A retrospective impact analysis of the WannaCry cyberattack on the NHS’, NPJ Digital Medicine, 2(98). doi: 10.1038/s41746-019-0161-6.
• 20. Giannopoulos, G., Smith, H. and Theocharidou, M. (2021) The landscape of hybrid threats: A conceptual model. (EUR 30585 EN). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
• 21. Goel, R.K., Saunoris, J.W. and Goel, S.S. (2021) ‘Supply chain performance and economic growth: The impact of COVID-19 disruptions’, Journal of Policy Modeling, 43(2), pp. 298–316. doi: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2021.01.003.
• 22. Goldbeck, N., Angeloudis, P. and Ochieng, W.Y. (2019) ‘Resilience assessment for interdependent urban infrastructure systems using dynamic network flow models’, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 188, pp. 62–79. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.03.007.
• 23. Haimes, Y.Y. (2009) ‘On the definition of resilience in systems’, Risk Analysis, 29(4), pp. 498–501. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01216.x.
• 24. Helbing, D. (2013) ‘Globally networked risks and how to respond’, Nature, 497(7447), pp. 51–59. doi: 10.1038/nature12047.
• 25. Hollnagel, E., Woods, D. and Leveson, N. (ed.). (2006) Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
• 26. Lewis, A.M., Ward, D., Cyra, L. and Kourti, N. (2013) ‘European reference network for critical infrastructure protection’, International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 6(1), pp. 51–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcip.2013.02.004.
• 27. Naikar, N. (2013) Work domain analysis: Concepts, guidelines, and cases. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
• 28. Naikar, N. (2017) ‘Cognitive work analysis: An influential legacy extending beyond human factors and engineering’, Applied Ergonomics, 59, pp. 528–540. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2016.06.001.
• 29. Naikar, N., Hopcroft, R. and Moylan, A. (2005) Work domain analysis: Theoretical concepts and methodology . (DSTO-TR-1665). Australia: Air Operations Division, Defence Science and Technology Organisation.
• 30. National Infrastructure Commission (2018) National infrastructure assessment. Available at: https://nic.org.uk/app/uploads... (Accessed: 15 March 2022).
• 31. National Infrastructure Commission (2020) Anticipate, react, recover. Resilient infrastructure systems. Available at: https://nic.org.uk/app/uploads... (Accessed: 15 March 2022).
• 32. NATO (2021a) Brussels Summit Communiqué. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/na... (Accessed: 5 February 2022).
• 33. NATO (2021b) Civil preparedness. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/na... (Accessed: 14 May 2021).
• 34. Otto, A., Hall, J.W., Hickford, A.J., Nicholls, R.J., Alderson, D., Barr, S. and Tran, M. (2016) ‘A quantified system-of-systems modeling framework for robust national infrastructure planning’, IEEE Systems Journal, 10(2), pp. 385–396. doi: 10.1109/JSYST.2014.2361157.
• 35. Oughton, E.J., Usher, W., Tyler, P. and Hall, J.W. (2018) ‘Infrastructure as a complex adaptive system’, Complexity, 2018. doi: 10.1155/2018/3427826.
• 36. Ouyang, M. (2014) ‘Review on modeling and simulation of interdependent critical infrastructure systems’, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 121, pp. 43–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2013.06.040.
• 37. Petersen, L., Lange, D. and Theocharidou, M. (2020) ‘Who cares what it means? Practical reasons for using the word resilience with critical infrastructure operators’, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 199. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2020.106872.
• 38. Poland, C. (2009) The resilient city: Defining what San Francisco needs from its seismic mitigation policies. San Francisco Planning + Urban Research Association (SPUR). Available at: https://www.spur.org/publicati... (Accessed: 15 March 2022).
• 39. Rechard, J., Bignon, A., Berruet, P. and Morineau, T. (2015) ‘Verification and validation of a work domain analysis with turing machine task analysis’, Applied Ergonomics, 47, pp. 265–273. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.10.012.
• 40. Rinaldi, S.M., Peerenboom, J.P. and Kelly, T.K. (2001) ‘Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies’, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 21, pp. 11–25. doi: 10.1109/37.969131.
• 41. Rykiel, E.J. (1996) ‘Testing ecological models: The meaning of validation’, Ecological Modelling, 90(3), pp. 229–244. doi: 10.1016/0304-3800(95)00152-2.
• 42. Santos, J.R. (2006) ‘Inoperability input-output modeling of disruptions to interdependent economic systems’, Systems Engineering, 9(1), pp. 20–34. doi: 10.1002/sys.20040.
• 43. Schulman, P.R. (2022) ‘Reliability, uncertainty and the management of error: New perspectives in the COVID-19 era’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 30, pp. 92–101. doi: 10.1111/1468-5973.12356.
• 44. Security Act (2019) Act relating to national security. Available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL... (Accessed: 15 March 2022).
• 45. Vespignani, A. (2010) ‘The fragility of interdependency’, Nature, 464, pp. 984–985. doi: 10.1038/464984a.
• 46. Vicente, K.J. (1999) Cognitive work analysis. Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
• 47. Wied, M., Oehmen, J. and Welo, T. (2020) ‘Conceptualizing resilience in engineering systems: An analysis of the literature’, Systems Engineering, 23(1), pp. 3–13. doi: 10.1002/sys.21491.
• 48. Woods, D.D. (2020) ‘The strategic agility gap: How organizations are slow and stale to adapt in turbulent worlds’, in B. Journé, H. Laroche, C. Bieder, and C. Gilbert (eds.), Human and organisational factors: Practices and strategies for a changing world. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 95–104.
• 49. Zimmerman, R. (2001) ‘Social implications of infrastructure network interactions’, Journal of Urban Technology, 8(3), pp. 97–119. doi: 10.1080/106307301753430764.
• 50. Zio, E. (2016) ‘Challenges in the vulnerability and risk analysis of critical infrastructures’, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 152, pp. 137–150. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2016.02.009.