**7. Standardizing the concept: ISO 31050**

The main calling of ISO 31050 (ISO New Work Item (NWI) 31050 "Guidance for Managing Emerging Risks to Enhance Resilience"<sup>4</sup> ), is to provide universal, yet meaningful guidance on developing new competencies and business models to create relevant and realistic recommendations in an ever-changing uncertain world. The standard itself aims to provide the much-needed foresight and insight to deal with the rapidly changing landscape of risk due to the slew of new uncertainties and new emerging risks, the management of which is essential for society. It is based on the idea that these, emerging risks, are those that can challenge the resilience of the critical infrastructures the most. It aims to integrate and align the (emerging) risk

<sup>4</sup> https://www.iso.org/standard/54224.html

*Resilience and Situational Awareness in Critical Infrastructure Protection… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97810*

#### **Figure 13.**

*InfraStress framework integrating resilience analysis and situational awareness and its application to resilience improvement decision-making: Within the overall framework (a), the embedded MCDM modules communicate with other modules and get values through a Kafka broker, and lead to the resilience assessment based decision optimization (b).*

framework with resilience framework (definitions, concepts, requirements) and propose outputs such as a procedure for scanning for emerging risks, metrics for assessing possible impacts of those risks on critical infrastructure's resilience. The management framework, guidance for interoperability and common/agreed indicators, as well as the particular considerations related to emerging risks in resilience assessment. ISO 31050 will be part of the ISO 31000:2018 family of standards, monitored by the ISO Technical Committee TC262.

#### **8. Conclusions**

The ResilienceCube allows presenting the resilience of a critical infrastructure as a single point (Resilience Index) in a 3D space. The concept, especially as implemented in the tool (the ResilienceTool) is user-friendly, intuitively

understandable and flexible. It supports end-users (authorities, critical infrastructure operators and owners) in improving the disaster resilience of respective critical infrastructures through indicator-based assessment of their resilience capabilities. This solution provided by SmartResilience and InfraStress projects is oriented towards the practical needs of end-users and has been developed in close collaboration with all relevant stakeholders. In order to achieve the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) beyond the initially planned 4, the Tool is being tested and constantly improved through the development of realistic use cases, both within and beyond the projects.

resilience (note: we do not have anything better around yet!) and point out where the "investment in the improvement of the global infrastructure" will be the most

*Resilience and Situational Awareness in Critical Infrastructure Protection…*

The contribution is based on the Grant Agreements No. 700621 and No. 833088 supporting the work on the SmartResilience and InfraStress projects, respectively, provided by the Research Executive Agency (REA) ('the Agency'), under the power delegated by the European Commission ('the Commission'). This support is gladly acknowledged. The work presented is a result of a great collective effort of all the partners of the SmartResilience and InfraStress projects – many thanks for this to all of them. Nevertheless, some of these contributions were particularly important for this particular paper, e.g., the methodological ones of K. Øien, big-data related ones of P. Klimek, and technical preparatory ones of Sh. Macika, M. Th. Nguyen and

Example of the resilience indicator data sheet in SmartResilience and InfraStress

T. Rosen. The authors mention this with appreciation and gratitude.

systems (a) and their implementation in the database (b).

effective and beneficial.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97810*

**Acknowledgements**

**Appendix 1**

**81**

The SmartResilience and InfraStress ResilienceTool are envisaged to stay available, free of charge for the registered ERRA members, also after the project end. The main ERRA service (risk and resilience "Assessment-as-a-service") will be performed by the Agency together with and subcontracting to Agency member organizations (organizational members and individuals) which have the different competencies needed to meet the specific needs of specific industry branches or application areas (e.g. critical infrastructures or new technologies). In the most general terms, ERRA would contact and negotiate with the customers, engage the experts among the Agency members, process the contracts with the customer, and guarantee the quality of assessment provided by the Agency. Main Agency services would be the self-assessment, the audited self-assessment and the third party audit, similarly to the services of GRI (www.globalreporting.org).

The concepts and the tools were applied to the analysis of health infrastructures (over 100 hospitals) in a COVID-like scenario [33]. The concept allows integrating the qualitative approaches with those based on a more complex quantitative resilience analysis (e.g. [30, 34, 35] or [22]). In addition, the work in the background of this paper has clearly shown, that the current research on resilience has a number of different aspects: from those focusing on the "resilience of and within a network" (e.g. in the area of electric grids or transportation networks - **Figure 14**), to those looking at resilience as "ability of an organization to absorb and adapt in a changing environment" [36]. The latter, obviously not necessarily requiring a network, or measuring it within a network. Both approaches, on the other hand, are applicable to critical infrastructures.

To conclude, within the plethora of the "current" existing tools (e.g. those presented or reviewed in [25, 37–42] or [43]), that all can simulate different resilience aspects of large and complex systems and/or apply optimization techniques to improve it (e.g. by indicating the optimum path towards system recovery or improving preparedness to unknowns) the approach presented here proposes a pragmatic and flexible way to achieve improvement through applying resilience indicators. It has been "combat-tested" in a number of large-scale cases and it has confirmed being robust and combinable with the systems previously on site.

Finally, the concepts might have one of an even more ambitious potential allocation: the biggest infrastructure of all is the "infrastructure of all infrastructures" of our planet Earth and the "global society". Technically, the methodology presented here can be applied for this case too, allowing to quantify the global

#### **Figure 14.**

*Resilience of a network (graph representation) – Not always the same as the engineering resilience of an organization, defined by ISO as "ability of an organization to absorb and adapt in a changing environment" (ISO 23316, https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:std:iso:22316:ed-1:v1:en).*

*Resilience and Situational Awareness in Critical Infrastructure Protection… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97810*

resilience (note: we do not have anything better around yet!) and point out where the "investment in the improvement of the global infrastructure" will be the most effective and beneficial.
