SmartResilience Smart Resilience Indicators for Smart Critical Infrastructures

The SmartResilience H2020 project, coordinated by EU-VRi, has finished and its main results are released.

SmartResilience in a nutshell

Modern critical infrastructures are becoming increasingly smarter (e.g. the smart cities). Making the infrastructures smarter usually means making them smarter in the normal operation and use: more adaptive, more intelligent etc. But will these smart critical infrastructures (SCIs) behave smartly and be smartly resilient also when exposed to extreme threats, such as extreme weather disasters or terrorist attacks? If making existing infrastructure smarter is achieved by making it more complex, would it also make it more vulnerable? Would this affect resilience of an SCI as its ability to anticipate, prepare for, adapt and withstand, respond to, and recover? What are the resilience indicators (RIs) which one has to look at?
These are the main questions tackled by the SmartResilience project.
The project answered the above questions in several steps: (1) By identifying existing indicators suitable for assessing resilience of SCIs, (2) By identifying new smart resilience indicators including those from Big Data, (3) By developing, a new advanced resilience assessment methodology based on smart RIs and the resilience indicators cube, including the resilience matrix, (4) By developing the interactive SCI Dashboard tool, and (5) By applying the methodology/tools in 8 case studies, integrated under one virtual, smart-city-like, European case study. The SCIs considered (in 8 European countries!) deal with energy, transportation, health, and water.
Responding to EC Call H2020-DRS-2014-2015: Disaster Resilience: Safeguarding and securing society, including adapting to climate change, the project produced a complete resilience assessment methodology with several accompanying tools, notably the ResilienceTool which supports all of the developed methodology’s features. The methodology and its tools’ good reception made it clear to the consortium that the tool should and could be developed further which actually drove it from the promised RTL4 level (validation in lab) to a fully operational tool at TRL7 (operational prototype) with several real-world cases already implemented within.
Additionally, later in the project, the consortium identified an opportunity to drive the project’s results’ dissemination further and created the new work package (WP9): Ensuring uptake and sustainability of project results which would form the basis for the development of the European Risk and Resilience Assessment agency (ERRA) and that will see the embedding of the project’s results in the new ISO standard 31050: Guidance for managing emerging risks to enhance resilience.
For more information regarding the ResilienceTool, a full user guide is publically available as deliverable D3.7: “The ResilienceTool” of the SmartResilience project on the SmartResilience project’s website.

Main results

The European project SmartResilience has yielded five major break-through results:

	1.    Method: An innovative state-of-the art concept enabling quantitative assessment of resilience. The concept aims combines the advantages of approaches oriented towards the easy-to-understand communication of the assessments results (such as “resilience very high” or “resilience level red”) with the advantages of the in-depth assessment approaches, providing many, but often difficult to understand results (e.g. detailed textual reports from complex resilience exercises). This main elements of the indicator-based concept are the “resilience cube” at the top, and the assessment methodology allowing to (a) assess resilience in a given moment in time and monitor it over the time, (b) analyze it during a particular adverse effect scenario, (c) benchmark it, (d) stress-test it, (e) analyze it in a system of multiple infrastructures and, last but not least, (f) optimize it a transparent and intuitive way. The concept is public, presented in publications and presentation and is being summarized in a book under preparation with the publisher (Springer).
	2.    Tool: The concept is applied within a web-based system, the main elements of which are the resilience indicator database (over 4,000 indicators available, over 3,000 indicators and almost 1,000 issues), the web-suite of tools (over 20different, combining those pertinent and developed within SmartResilience project with the “” external” ones) and repository of the application cases, the later in itself supporting future analyses.
	3.    Applications: The concept has been practically applied in 19 case studies in which over 300 different resilience assessments were made, about 30% of those made for the stakeholders outside the project (e.g. in other DRS EU projects or the institutions supporting the partners in the projects – e.g. ministries). The concept has been discussed and agreed with over 50 different organizational stakeholders, setup at 7 external-to-the-project “MySmartResilience” sub-sites.
	4.    Standard: The project results, at the end of the project, are being embedded into the new ISO 31050 standard currently under development.
	5.    Beyond-the-project use: The “life-after-the-project” of the project results will be practically ensured by the dedicated “resilience rating agency”, the creation of which is initiated at the end of the project (ensuring free-of-charge use after the project), and the educational platform running under the umbrella of the site of one of the academic partners in project. www.erra.eu-vri.eu

 

The TRL (technology readiness level) envisaged at the start of the project to be TRL4, has been over-achieved (approx. TRL5-TRL6). The main results of the projects are already used in the follow-up EU projects and other initiatives. 

 

Duration: 36 Months / Partners: 20 / Programme: Research and Innovation Action in H2020 / Budget-EC Grant: approx. 5-9 Million Euro

http://www.smartresilience.eu-vri.eu

The workshop is meant to create a dialogue around the OECD Policy Toolkit on Governance for Critical Infrastructure Resilience, adopted at the meeting of the OECD High Level Risk Forum in December  2018. The final agenda for the event is linked below:

http://www.smartresilience2.eu-vri.eu/filehandler.ashx?path=SmartResilience/PROJECT/WP6/T6.3/CI%20WS%20Agenda-DC_FINAL.pdf

 

 

Event Details

 

These newly posted deliverables are:

• D3.6 - Guideline for assessing, predicting and monitoring resilience of Smart Critical Infrastructures
• D4.4 - Expert workshops for definition, selection and refinement of indicators

 

MySmartResilience Tool

A recent update to the SmartResilience web interface includes a new section of the tool called MySmartResilience that enables personalized data entry, analysis, and saving.

Project stakeholders should contact smartresilience-core@eu-vri.eu to gain access to this section of the tool.

 

 

 

 

---

 

SmartResilience Welcome Web Page Updates

Two recent updates have been made to the Welcome web page of the SmartResilience tool:

1. Testimonials have been added to share end-user and project participant experiences with and impressions of SmartResilience.

2. A Feedback Survey is now available via the “Tell us your opinion” button and directly via this link: http://www.smartresilience2.eu-vri.eu/Survey_Run.aspx?ID=978. We ask that interested parties please help us by taking some time (estimated 10-15 minutes) to complete this survey to help us improve the SmartResilience tool and potential applications. This survey can be distributed to anyone who may be interested in providing feedback. There is also an opportunity included in this survey to provide a testimonial for the project.

 

 

The original article is available in German here: http://www.inpactmedia.com/wirtschaft/risikomanagement/wir-brauchen-standards-fuer-globale-risiken#2287. A translated version in English is provided below:

»We need standards for global risks«
Globalization is driving forward world networking. But with complexity also comes risks. How can you correctly assess a threat situation? Are we even worried about the "right" things?

Klaus Lüber, Editorial Staff

And how can you handle risks that have global implications? An interview with Prof. Aleksandar Jovanović, Head of the European Virtual Institute for Integrated Risk Management (EU-VRi).

KL: Mr. Jovanović: natural disasters, infrastructure damage, political imponderables, supply chain disruption, piracy, sabotage, cybercrime - the number of risks in international business seems to be growing. Is that really the case, or is it just because we know more and more about risks?
AJ: That's not so easy to answer. What does "growing" mean? What we do know is that the present has become more complex and often entails new risks. As a system becomes more complex, in general, the risks become more complex, and the number of potential and new risks increases. The problem is that in order to really assess a threat situation, we need reliable reference points. At the “regulars” table you can talk about the real dangers of climate change at length, but as long as you do not have a reliable framework to define priorities, criteria and decision-making processes (when it comes to risk assessment) all remain just a roundtable discussion.

KL: You could consult experts.
AJ: Yes, of course you could, and of course you do, but that does not really make you “pass.” For example, if every expert has a different opinion, we get a collection of responses in silos. This is a very unfavorable situation, especially when dealing with complex risks, because here [with complex risks] it is particularly important to act interdisciplinary and to see the "big picture."

KL: Do you mean [to imply] action guidelines for companies and institutions?
AJ: Right, and here comes the next challenge: the classification of responsibilities - "mandates" - has also become more complex. As a result, it is often the very institutions that are supposed to exercise these mandates globally, such as the UN or the EU, which become increasingly powerless or unfree in doing so. At the national level, it is often not much better. Although consensus on dealing with complex and systemic risks is certainly very important, as well as [achieving] the acceptance of as many people as possible, the reluctance of an institution [to act], such as a competent ministry which actually has power to act on an issue such as “coal exit,” is out of place.

KL: What is the general policy in the area of risk management?
AJ: In my opinion, there is definitely room for improvement. Many authorities and institutions have long lost much of their expertise and have many specialist personnel issues. Take the cybercrime field: since it is often impossible for authorities to engage the right IT professionals to provide the TVL-like conditions, many “cybersecurity centers” lack the right professionals or expertise.

KL: What about the situation with companies? Do they usually have more financial leeway?
AJ: That's right, but they have the problem of having to decide whether to invest long-term or short-term. For example, insurers who have been dealing with risk management issues for years often have to balance the investments they have in short or long-term risks because they cannot always afford the required research on the long-term, more complex risks. As in politics, they are simply less and less interested in long-term planning. It's worth less or even nothing at all.

KL: Let’s speak [more] concretely about the risks that we are dealing with in business and society. The sociologist and risk researcher Ortwin Renn, with whom you have worked for many years, sees the greatest danger in so-called systemic risks.
AJ: Yes, Mr. Renn means risks that can have global implications, are closely networked with many functional areas of the economy and society, and have cause-and-effect chains where we cannot get by with a classic, statistic-based approach. Here we need a fundamental change of perspective.

KL: What do you mean?
AJ: One should say goodbye to the idea that one could simply avoid or combat systemic risks like an external disturbance. The truth is that it is no longer about avoiding risks but understanding them as best as possible and preparing for them in the best possible way [in order] to ensure the resilience of the systems. That's one thing. The other is that solving complex and global problems usually has to be complex and global. Global also in the sense of "integrative" and "integrated".

KL: You have to explain that, please.
AJ: The decisive factor is the integration of various solutions into integrated risk management. That is exactly what we are doing at the EU-VRi, [the Virtual] European Institute for Integrated Risk Management. In doing so, one must try to consider all the different sources, including those, for example, that can cause or promote the misperception of risks in social networks. Nowadays, you have to be able to analyze the large amounts of data available – “Big Data” -, to be able to analyze new methods and have new analysis software. This is the only way to detect new trends in risks in good time: by observing them in real time and to derive recommendations for action from them. It is very useful to compare these results, which you can get without experts, with expert opinions.

KL: So risk analysis tools alone are not enough [to avoid risks]?
AJ: No, because even with these tools you will hardly be able to avoid them; new solutions also generate new risks. A classic example is the risk of Alzheimer's disease. That [risk] is one in a hundred at the age of 65 but one in six at the age of 85. One could say: by avoiding the risks that lead to an early death, at the same tome you increase the risk of developing [other] diseases that increase [in risk] with age. That this pattern is repeated in other fields, such as the exit from coal, autonomous driving, or Industry 4.0, is to be expected.

KL: These are topics in each of which the aspect of social acceptance plays a role. Now many of your colleagues say that we often cannot assess risks properly. Isn’t it first of all a matter of distinguishing "real" from "fake" risks?
AJ: Of course you can do that, but you should be careful not to take so-called "false" risks less seriously. For a long time, insurers have had their own term: phantom risks. Although they have no material, statistical basis, they should still play an important role in a risk analysis. To perform a full risk analysis, one must consider factors such as risk perception and social acceptance. If technology is accepted in one corner of the world and not in another, it is important to understand why.

KL: Like, for example, the Transrapid?
Exactly. A cutting-edge technology that has not found social acceptance. Not least of all because the risks associated with the Transrapid in Germany and the classic train have been considered and categorized. Then it would be, as in every train, an emergency brake would be required on the Transrapid, while nobody would think of installing one in an airplane.

KL: What recommendations do you give to politics and business?
AJ: It's all about recognizing the importance of frameworks for efficient risk management. Just as we have agreed in many countries to drive to the right or measure speed in km/h, we also need more commonly accepted risk and resilience management standards in risk research - such as the new ISO 31050. That's because we need maximum clarity and the above framework in the implementation. Only then will we have a chance to prepare efficiently for the challenges of old and new risks.

Around 40 participants from all over the world (China, USA, France, etc.) gathered together in the premises of Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam. During the 1-day workshop, the most tangible results of the work done in the project were presented. Project partners higlighted the specific issues tackled by their case studies, showing the indicators which they have selected for the assessment as well as their contribution to the integrated network/tool developed within SmartResilience. Furthermore, application of SR Tool on other EU DRS project has been presented by dr Emanuelle Bellini, coordinator of RESOLUTE.  

In the second part of the meeting, Frederic Petit from Argonne National Laboratory presented the need to promote a global approach to resilience.

At the end, the Chair of Critical Infrastructure Resilience Advisory Board, Prof. Claudio Rolandi, and coordinator of the project, Prof. Aleksandar Jovanović led a fruitful panel discussion about the challenges related to resilience management, perspectives on enterprise resilience, and engagement of relevant politicians. 

Early 2018, the European Virtual Institute for Integrated Risk Management (EU-VRi)  and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the aim of strengthening their collaboration in the field of resilience of critical infrastructures.

Argonne National Laboratory is a science and engineering research national laboratory operated by the University of Chicago Argonne LLC for the United States Department of Energy.