http://www.smartresilience.eu-vri.eu/http://www.smartresilience.eu-vri.eu/
 
30 Oct
2018
Prof. Jovanović interviewed regarding risk standardization
News Photo Prof. Aleksandar Jovanović recently gave an interview for the leading German economic newspaper Wirtschaftswoche, recognizing the importance of standardization work in the area of risks. EU-VRi, Steinbeis, and Prof. Jovanović are long-time active leaders in the area of standardization related to emerging risks, currently working on a new ISO standard, ISO 31050 Guidance for Managing Emerging Risks to Enhance Resilience.



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.
13 Sep
2018
SmartResilience Selection of CORE DCL ISSUES & INDIA Workshop in Brussels
News Photo SmartResilience Project Partners met in Brussels on September 11-12, 2018, in order to discuss the CORE list of issues and the INDIA case study. On the first day, Prof. Jovanović introduced the concept of the CORE dynamic checklist (DCL) and presented the SmartResilience tool. During this day, the workshop participants also reviewed the issues and finalized the CORE DCL. On the second day, a tabletop exercise was conducted to simulate cascading and ripple effects on combined scenarios (CASE STUDY INDIA).
30 May
2018
SmartResilience Open Workshop and CIRAB Meeting
News Photo SmartResilience Project partners, members of Critical Infrastructure Resilience Advisory Board, insurance experts, and representatives of different research institutes, as well as end-users, met in Potsdam on May 29, 2018, in order to discuss the progress of the work done in the project and align the further actions needed for the remaining 11 months of the project.



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. 

           
           
05 Apr
2018
SmartResilience Newsletter - 3rd issue
News Photo Approaching the end of its second year, SmartResilience has released its 3rd newsletter!



Approaching the end of its second year, SmartResilience has released its 3rd newsletter!

This newsletter gives some hints about the project progress and results as well as information about the use of big data in the project, and the short information for MCDM & Dashboard.    
19 Mar
2018
MoU with ANL on resilience of critical infrastructures
News Photo

EU-VRi and Argonne National Laboratory (US) sign a MoU in the field of resilience of critical infrastructures !





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.

This new collaboration aims to develop the mechanisms and processes to promote research, academic exchange and cooperation for the mutual goal of improving safety, security and sustainability aspects of resilience of critical infrastructures. This exchange of information will include resilience related indicators, assessment methods, tools, auditing for the improvement of protection of critical infrastructures.

08 Mar
2018
Do you want to know more about the SmartResilience Project results? Check the latest news
News Photo The quintessence of the Resilience Assessment Methodology in the SmartResilience project is presented here!



The SmartResilience project provides a new methodology for assessing and managing resilience of critical infrastructures, such as energy and water supply, transportation networks and similar. The term “resilience” of an infrastructure, describes its ability to cope with possible adverse scenarios/events that can potentially lead to significant disruptions in its operation/functionality. Examples of scenarios are, for instance, terrorist attacks stopping airport operation or cyber-attacks destroying the financial systems. Coping with these scenarios means preparing for them, being able to absorb/withstand their impacts, recovering optimally from their impacts and adapting to the continuously changing conditions. In practice, an end-user essentially wants to know answers to the questions below, flowing the resilience assessment workflow.

Presented is ''10 sentences for end-users". In order to display it, please click on the picture below.

 

More elaborated version (.pptx presentation) showing the tangible results of the work done so far in the project can be accessed here:

NOTE: When you click on the picture above, presentation will be downloaded automatically.

 

24 Jan
2018
Prof. Dr. A. Jovanovic presented the lecture: “Fooled by (past) resilience: Why do we overestimate resilience of our critical infrastructures” at University of Wuppertal (BUW).
News Photo Mr. Jovanovic was invited as guest lecturer for the public safety lecture series at BUW. His presentation focused on the state of the art knowledge about resilience quantification developed within the SmartResilience project. The Horizon 2020 research project is elaborating a new advanced resilience assessment methodology in order to measure and increase resilience of smart critical infrastructures (SCIs) within Europe and around the world. The lecture is available on Youtube (for the BUW channel see Here) and Facebook.
07 Jun
2017
First Review meeting taking place in Brussels on June 8, 2017!
News Photo First Review meeting will be taking place in Brussels on June 8, 2017.