Quantitative and qualitative differences worth considering in approaching critical infrastructures resilience

Dorel Badea,Ghiță Bârsan,Dumitru Iancu,Ioan Virca,I Bondrea,C Simion,M Inţă

doi:10.1051/matecconf/201712111004

Dorel Badea, Ghiță Bârsan + Show 5 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201712111004

Copy DOI

Abstract

Through the implicit connections between risk, safety, protection and, last but not least, resiliency, that need to be managed, critical infrastructures have become a subject of increasing interest both for specialists and for academics. Based on this premise, this article analyzes in terms of operational performance several internationally used solutions for assessing resilience, having in view the desire to choose the best in order to be presented in some specialized disciplines of the postgraduate curricula that are annually presented in the educational offer of the Land Forces Academy. The authors also present their own vision on approaching the resilience of critical infrastructures so that it can harmoniously be integrated into the security plans of the holders or operators of such special assets.

Highlights

For all humanity, especially after the 2000s, it has become clear that the sources of dysfunctionality, seriously affecting the development of society, are no longer of a strictly military nature, others manifesting themselves intensively and extensively, with at least disturbing effects in terms of ensuring continuity in the daily activities
The problem consists in approaching resilience on the basis of a SMART determination, the results of the research carried out especially at European level (CIPRNet - Critical Infrastructure Preparedness and Resilience Research Network; CRISADMIN - Critical Infrastructure Simulation of Advanced Models on Interconnected Networks Resilience) or in the United States, still not converging towards a certain standard methodology
A.Dinicu and D.Badea [2], an annual questionnaire-based research is proposed, applied to all critical infrastructure operators through which information is to be collected on: - the number of events recorded in the reference period, - the average time to restore the functionality of infrastructure, important factors influencing the performance, - the staffing in the reference period, number of training exercises conducted to simulate scenarios

Summary

Reaction capacity

The extensive use of SCADA systems is considered, with stateof-the-art automatic and sensorization elements, that ensure good interoperability with other systems up and down the interdependency chain and, at the same time, a reduced time for detecting deficiencies. Integration within expert decisional systems is considered It will focus on an intensive training system of employees within a basic component providing general competences for a systemic, technical and operational understanding of the issues related to critical infrastructures, and a specialty component stressing the operational particularities of the system itself. It insists on the employees’ becoming aware of their roles within the system. After carrying out an audit, a firm specializing in consultancy on industrial security concludes that the strategic objective must be to ensure resilience and proposes three technology-based strategies, people and procedures, with common and differentiation elements, as shown in table 1, being the general manager's responsibility to decide (Figure 1) which of the options presented should be implemented

Experience and judgment moderately favor one element importance over another

Conclusions