Report On The Results Of The Interactive Workshop
Creators: name: Jovanović, Aleksandar
name: Choudhary, Amrita
name: Tetlak, K.
name: Albrecht, Nils
name: Roque, R.
name: Klimek, Peter
name: Székely, Zoltan
name: Bezrukov, Dmitrij
name: Sanne, Johan
name: Knape, Thomas
name: Auerkari, P.
name: Øien, Knut
name: Bergfors, Linus
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2017

description: The main goal of task 5.1 according to the grant agreement has been to agree upon a common<br>
approach between the developers of the methodology and the end-users. Practically, it means<br>
that the objective of the task was to test it and provide feedback from the end-user on the<br>
early version of the methodology developed in T3.2.<br>
To accomplish this goal, the following was done:<br>
1. A survey was performed with the case study owners (where the goal was to<br>
establish their baseline at the owners’ side). with respect to e.g. risk/resilience<br>
assessment, relevant threats and vulnerabilities, and possible cascading effects.<br>
Existing methods used for assessing risk/resilience were identified, along with<br>
knowledge about selected new concepts such as the resilience matrix and the<br>
resilience curve. The most common threats are the events related to natural<br>
hazards, followed by malicious attacks such as terrorist attacks and cyber-attacks.<br>
2. An interactive workshop was organized with participation from the case study<br>
owners and the methodology developers (The goal was to present the new<br>
resilience assessment methodology and initiate its application to the case studies).<br>
During the workshop, the case study owners applied the methodology to answer<br>
the following questions:<br>
• What are the relevant and real issues and conventional indicators that are<br>
applicable to the respective scenarios in the case studies to measure the<br>
resilience of the SCI?<br>
• Which sources of big data can be used for defining possible indicators for each<br>
case study?<br>
• What are the dependencies and interdependencies foreseen in each case study?<br>
3. The inputs from the case studies were consolidated in a common template. In this<br>
template, the case study owners answered the above questions and in the end,<br>
provided general feedback on the methodology.<br>
What was good?<br>
1. Results are provided for all-but-one case study.<br>
2. The end-users broadly understood the methodology.<br>
3. They identified over 230 issues and 270 indicators basis the methodology for<br>
respective smart critical infrastructures. The issues and indicators were suggested<br>
based on measures applied in the case studies, relevant regulations and standards.<br>
In addition, the end-users suggested possible big data available in their case studies<br>
to derive smart and new resilience indicators. Further, they identified the<br>
dependencies and interdependencies and finally, summed up their feedback on the<br>
methodology.<br>
What is still open?<br>
1. Completeness of the collected issues and indicators needs to be addressed, i.e., that<br>
there are enough issues and indicators to assess the resilience of the SCI<br>
2. Quality of issues and indicators<br>
3. Development of the parameters to measure the functionality of SCI over time<br>
4. Specific aspects about the understanding of the issues and indicators amongst the<br>
case study partners. This area needs further attention and clarification, e.g. through<br>
training of the case study partners. An additional interactive workshop could be<br>
beneficial. The findings of this report, including clarification of issues and indicators,<br>
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<br>
to make it sufficiently clear for the end-users to apply. The issues and indicators (see Figure 1)<br>
provided here (and in T4.1) are important for assessing resilience, using the methodology in<br>
T3.2. In addition, some of the indicators may be relevant parameters for assessing the<br>
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<br>
indicator still needs to be addressed. This may be facilitated in T3.3 and T4.1. Moreover, the<br>
dependencies and interdependencies findings are useful for T2.3 and T5.12 for the analysis of<br>
cascading effects.