Panel VI - Creating a Scientific Base for Resiliency – the Road to HFA2

1. © Fraunhofer
FP7 CRISIS MANAGEMENT DEMO PHASE I & II
- Aftermath Crisis Management System-of-Systems -
- DRiving InnoVation in EU Resilience and Crisis Management -
Phase I: Preparing the demo
Phase II: The demo
Merle Missoweit
Davos, 30 August 2013

2. Societal Resilience Capabilities
Agent
Action
Individual Community Third-parties
(the unaffected)
Public
sector
Private sector Media
Adapt
behaviour
Responsible
behaviour; e.g.
reducing water
consumtion to
put less strain on
the system
Responsible
communities; E.g.
communities
organizing
rationing schemes
Responsible
behaviour;
refraining from
harmful behaviour,
e.g. Extensive use of
telephone lines into
the affected area
Responsible
government;
e.g. adapting
public policy to
the crisis
situation
Responsible
business; e.g.
reducing power
consumtion
Responsible
media; E.g.
refraining from
reporting in a
way that could
jeopardize
reponse
Help
oneself
Ability to cope;
e.g. keeping
emergency food
stock
Community self-
reliance; e.g.
communities
setting up local
support centres
Ability to cope with
secondary effects;
E.g. Coping with
uncertainty about
the situation of next
of kin.
Government
resilience; e.g.
ability of
agencies to stay
operational
Business
continuity; ability
to stay operational
Media resilience;
ability to keep
reporting
Help
others
Citizen-to-citizen
help; willingness
and ability to
support others in
need; e.g. First
aid knowledge
Supportive
communities; e.g.
Opening
community
resources for the
affected
Understanding of
the needs; e.g.
informed provision
of support, as
opposed to
uncoordinated
provision of goods
Cross-agency
coordination;
e.g. effective
characterisation
and
communication
of demand
Supportive
business; e.g.
maintaining fair
prices despite
surge demand,
providing to those
most in need
Supportive
media; e.g.
opening media
channels to
support search
for next-of-kin
Help the
response
Volunteering; e.g
adequate
knowledge on
how and how not
to engage in the
organised
response
Engaged
communities; e.g.
community
leaders interacting
with organised
reponse to find
ways to support
Understaning of CM
among the public;
e.g. informed
volunteering
allowing better
management of
volunteers
Professional
response;
conducting CM
at local,
regional,
national and EU-
level in an
effective way
Access to
commercial
resources; e.g.
ranging from
hotels for housing
to excavators for
clearing affected
areas
Engaged media;
e.g. helping to
disseminate
alerts and critical
information

3. © Fraunhofer
 Crises and Crisis Management are complex
Further complicated by climate change and interconnectedness
Crises getting less predictable
More rapid dynamics
Higher variation in potential scenarios and combinations thereoff
Either our resilience solutions (be it preparatory or response)
are modular, flexible and adaptive OR the costs of crises or the
costs due to inadaquate preparation and management of crises will
inrease!
21st Century Disaster Management

4. © Fraunhofer
Infrastructure can‘t be just radically changed
CM systems can‘t be just radically changed
Both would imply significant costs and a loss of vital capabilties for a
long transition phase
Any new solution has to respect legacy systems in terms of
interoperabilty
Legacy infrastructure and CM systems

5. © Fraunhofer
 Any new solution, be it CM solution or resilience measures, can‘t be
just tested in real life due to unacceptable risk of loosing human life
and vast material values
How to decide whether a measure
a. Works in all possible scenarios?
b. Interoperates with legacy systems and other measures at SoS level?
c. Is cost effective wrt alternative solutions?
In other words: How to provide investment decision support and
to foster innovation in resilience?
Testing & evidence based investment decisions

6. © Fraunhofer
 FP7 Crisis Management Demonstration programme
Largest single investment in CM research for the foreseeable
future (total value of 45 Mio Euro)
An opportunity to harvest from earlier research and to test large-
scale SoS-effects and to create acceptance for new solutions
Iterative testing and refinement of promising solution while
increasing complexity wrt scenarios and system level over time
Experimentation instead of one-shot validations

7. © Fraunhofer
A CM Test-bed –
Creating space for
experimentation (SP2)
The societal
Perspective
The professional
perspective
Final
Demo
(SP6) DRIVER
portfolio of
tools
Promising
ideas from
R&D
Context – Threats, legacy,
society& policy
Sustainable tools for evidence-based capability
building & better shared understanding of CM
• SP3: Resilience
• SP4: Operations
• SP5: Learning
Joint
Exp.
Joint
Exp.

8. © Fraunhofer
WP2: Test-bed – physical architecture
FR
-
SDIS13/
Nice
DE/NL
- The
Hague/T
HW
SE/NO
- MSB
PL
- ITTI
Simulation tools, support for distributed experiments,
databases,…
Experimentation guidance & methods, performance
measurement methods, costing…
Standards, quality assurance, test-bed improvement
mechanisms…
Common guidance
Physical &
Organisational
platforms
Common/Shared
infrastructure
Common
intellectual resources
Communities of interest, competence mappings…
Common
Social resources

9. © Fraunhofer
WP2: Test-bed – physical architecture
FR
-
SDIS13/
Nice
DE/NL
- The
Hague/T
HW
SE/NO
- MSB
PL
- ITTI
Simulation tools, support for distributed experiments,
databases,…
Experimentation guidance & metods, performance
measurement methods,…
Standards, quality assurance, test-bed improvement
mechanisms…
Common guidance
Physical &
Organisational
platforms
Common/Shared
infrastructure
Common
intellectual resources
Communities of interest, competence mappings…
Common
Social resources

10. © Fraunhofer
 The Resilience Concept is not quit e the same as the CM
 However, the same issues apply:
 How to address „all“ possible scenarios in a cost-effective way?
 How to measure success?
 How to develop an evidence-based decision basis for investment and
therewith acceptance among the relevant stakeholders?
 Benefits might be a bit more long-term. How to bridge this?
need of networks & competence mappings, Private & Public
structured knowledge: methdology, performance indicators
Physical and virtual platforms for experimentation (Modeling & Simulation!)
Common standards on how to do experimentation in resilience management
How does this relate to architectual and societal
infrastructures and their resilience?

11. © Fraunhofer
Merle Missoweit
Fraunhofer INT
Meta-Analysis & Planning Support
merle.missoweit@int.fraunhofer.de
THANK YOU!