Methodology of Situational Management of Critical Infrastructure Security

Wiśniewski, Michał

Methodology of Situational Management of Critical Infrastructure Security

Foundations of Management

Volume 12 (2020): Issue 1 (January 2020)

By:

Michał Wiśniewski

Open Access

|Mar 2020

Figures & Tables

Dependence between national security, civil planning, and critical infrastructure (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p.14)

The civil planning cycle (Source: Dz.U., 2019, Item 209)

The canon of CI characterization (Source: Wiśniewski and Ostrowska, 2016, pp.118–119)

Dependence of the MSMCIS steps on IMCIS elements (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p.24)

An example of a graphic illustration of the dependence of CI entities (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p.52)

Dependencies of elements of the CI situation model (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, pp.53–55)

Example of identification of CI dependencies in the considered modelNote: Ellipses are Cis (Vα), rectangles are threats (Zα,β), full arrows mean the dependencies of the considered CI (Gn), and dashed arrows mean threats’ excitation (Hn)?(Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p.63)

An example of decision problem (Source: Own elaboration)

An example of calculating the value of solution cost for a decision problem (Source: Own elaboration)

Procedures for implementing the MSMCIS (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p.92 and p.94)

The model of dependencies of the Refinery ORLEN Inc., the Basell Orlen Polyolefins Ltd, and the Production Facility Orlen Oil Ltd (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p.106)

Illustration of the considered flat decision problem (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p.113)

Illustration of the considered hierarchical decision problem (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p.124)

Matrix record of the considered hierarchical decision problem (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p.125)

Entities responsible for CI security (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p_19)

Local government level	State	The Council of Ministers		Government Security Center (State level)
		Governmental Crisis Management Team (GCMT)
	Province	Voivod
		Provincial Crisis Management Team (PCMT)	Provincial Center for Crisis Management
	District	District officer
		District Crisis Management Team (DCMT)	District Center for Crisis Management
	Community	Mayor / Mayor of the city
		Commune Crisis Management Team (CCMT)	Commune Center for Crisis Management
The level of the CI operator	Systems of CI	CI entities

Synthetic record of the situation of the Refinery ORLEN inc_, the Basell Orlen Polyolefins ltd_ and the Production Facility Orlen Oil ltd (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p_104)

CI	Functionalities		Threats							Vulnerability
CI	Mark	Value of functionality	Mark	Type	Excited threat	Probability	Effect	Mark	Degree of reduction of vulnerability
V₁	Φ_1,1	93%	Z_1,1	IN	explosion, environmental contamination	0.7	−47% (Φ_1,1)	M_1,1,1	0.46	0.88
							−37% (Φ_1,2)	M_1,1,1	0.46
							−13% (Φ_1,3)	M_1,1,2	0.31
	Φ_1,2	93%	Z_1,2	IN	fire	0.56	−42% (Φ_1,1)	M_1,2,1	0.16	0.31
							−36% (Φ_1,2)
							−46% (Φ_1,3)
	Φ_1,3	93%	Z_1,3	IN	-	0.81	−9% (Φ_1,1)	M_1,3,1	0.16	0.31
	Φ_1,3	93%	Z_1,3	IN	-	0.81	−9% (Φ_1,3)	M_1,3,1	0.16	0.31
V₂	Φ_2,1	93%	Z_2,1	IN	explosion, environmental contamination	0.42	–94% (Φ_2,1)	M_2,1,1	0.27	0.56
			Z_2,1	IN	explosion, environmental contamination	0.42	–94% (Φ_2,1)	M_2,1,2	0.18	0.56
			Z_2,2	IN	fire	0.35	−48% (Φ_2,1)	M_2,2,1	0.17	0.94
			Z_2,3	IN	-	0.61	−5% (Φ_2,1)	M_2,3,1	0.52	0.82
V₃	Φ_3,1	93%	Z_3,1	IN	explosion, environmental contamination	0.58	−55% (Φ_3,1)	M_3,1,1	0.05	0.92
							−34% (Φ_3,2)	M_3,1,1	0.05
							−65% (Φ_3,3)	M_3,1,2	0.75
	Φ_3,2	93%	Z_3,2	IN	fire	0.52	−41% (Φ_3,1)	M_3,2,1	0.14	0.83
							−27% (Φ_3,2)
							−38% (Φ_3,3)
	Φ_3,3	93%	Z_3,3	IN	-	0.49	−18% (Φ_3,1)	M_3,3,1	0.26	0.36
							−19% (Φ_3,2)
							−15% (Φ_3,3)

An example of synthetic characteristics of the stage of MSMCIS (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p_86)

The name of the stage	Establishment of a team
The goal of the stage	Used utilities	Input data	Output data
Establishment of the list of members in the analytical team responsible for CI security	Model of CI situationMatrix of competence	Characteristics of CIList of CI stakeholders	List of analytical team members
Procedure	analysis of stakeholders considered IK and selection of team members evaluation of matrix of analytical team competence

Synthetic record of the risk of functionality loss for considered CI entities after adding new safeguards (Source: Own elaboration)

CI	Threat	Probability	Effect		Vulnerability	Safeguard	Inherent risk	Residual risk
V_α	Z_α,β	P	Φ_α,γ	ΔΦ_α,γ	U_α,β	ΣM_α,β,λ	Rⁱ	R^r
V₁	Z_1,1	0.7	Φ_1,1	47%	0.88	0.88	28.95%	0.00%
			Φ_1,2	37%			22.79%	0.00%
			Φ_1,3	13%			8.01%	0.00%
	Z_1,2	0.56	Φ_1,1	42%	0.81	0.72	19.05%	2.12%
			Φ_1,2	39%			17.69%	1.97%
			Φ_1,3	46%			20.87%	2.32%
	Z_1,3	0.81	Φ_1,1	9%	0.31	0.29	2.26%	0.15%
	Z_1,3	0.81	Φ_1,3	9%			2.26%	0.15%
Sum of risk for						Φ_1,1	50.26%	2.26%
						Φ_1,2	40.48%	1.97%
						Φ_1,3	31.13%	2.46%

List of CI systems in the EU and Poland (Source: Dz_U_UE_, 2008, No_ 345, Item 75, Article 2b; Dz_U_, 2019, Item 209, Article 3, Point 2)

European CI systems

Polish CI systems

Electricity
Oil
Gas
Road transport
Rail transport
Air transport
Inland waterways transport
Ocean and short-sea shipping and ports

Energy, fuel and energy supply systems
Communication systems
Tele-information network systems
Financial systems
Food supply systems
Water supply systems
Health protection systems
Transportation systems
Rescue systems
Systems ensuring the continuity of public administration activities
Systems of production, storing and use of chemical and radioactive substances, including pipelines for hazardous substances

Synthetic record of the risk of functionality loss for considered CI entities (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p_105)

CI	Threat	Probability	Effect		Vulnerability	Safeguard	Inherent risk	Residual risk
V_α	Z_α,β	P	Φ_α,γ	ΔΦ_α,γ	U_α,β	M_α,β	Rⁱ	R^r
V₁	Z_1,1	0.7	Φ_1,1	47%	0.88	0.77	28.95%	3.62%
			Φ_1,2	37%			22.79%	2.85%
			Φ_1,3	13%			8.01%	1.00%
	Z_1,2	0.56	Φ_1,1	42%	0.81	0.16	19.05%	15.29%
			Φ_1,2	39%			17.69%	14.20%
			Φ_1,3	46%			20.87%	16.74%
	Z_1,3	0.81	Φ_1,1	9%	0.31	0.16	2.26%	1.09%
	Z_1,3	0.81	Φ_1,3	9%	0.31	0.16	2.26%	1.09%
Sum of risk for						Φ_1,1	50.26%	20.00%
						Φ_1,2	40.48%	17.05%
						Φ_1,3	31.13%	18.84%
V₂	Z_2,1	0.42	Φ_2,1	94%	0.56	0.45	22.11%	4.34%
	Z_2,2	0.35	Φ_2,1	48%	0.91	0.17	15.29%	12.43%
	Z_2,3	0.61	Φ_2,1	5%	0.82	0.52	2.50%	0.92%
Sum of risk for						Φ_2,2	39.90%	17.69%
V₃	Z_3,1	0.58	Φ_3,1	55%	0.92	0.8	29.35%	3.83%
			Φ_3,2	34%			18.14%	2.37%
			Φ_3,3	65%			34.68%	4.52%
	Z_3,2	0.52	Φ_3,1	41%	0.83	0.14	17.70%	14.71%
			Φ_3,2	27%			11.65%	9.69%
			Φ_3,3	38%			16.40%	13.63%
	Z_3,3	0.49	Φ_3,1	18%	0.36	0.26	3.18%	0.88%
			Φ_3,2	19%			3.35%	0.93%
			Φ_3,3	15%			2.65%	0.74%
Sum of risk for						Φ_3,1	50.22%	19.42%
						Φ_3,2	33.15%	12.99%
						Φ_3,3	53.73%	18.89%

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fman-2020-0004 | Journal eISSN: 2300-5661 | Journal ISSN: 2080-7279

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 43 - 60

Published on: Mar 20, 2020

Published by: Warsaw University of Technology

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 1 times per year

Keywords:

crisis management,

critical infrastructure,

risk assessment,

security threshold,

adverse event scenario

Related subjects:

Computer sciences,

Business computing,

Business and economics,

Business management,

Management accounting, financial controlling, cost calculation, investment

© 2020 Michał Wiśniewski, published by Warsaw University of Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Previous article Volume 12 (2020): Issue 1 (January 2020)Next article

Methodology of Situational Management of Critical Infrastructure Security

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Figure 14

Entities responsible for CI security (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p_19)

Synthetic record of the situation of the Refinery ORLEN inc_, the Basell Orlen Polyolefins ltd_ and the Production Facility Orlen Oil ltd (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p_104)

An example of synthetic characteristics of the stage of MSMCIS (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p_86)

Synthetic record of the risk of functionality loss for considered CI entities after adding new safeguards (Source: Own elaboration)

List of CI systems in the EU and Poland (Source: Dz_U_UE_, 2008, No_ 345, Item 75, Article 2b; Dz_U_, 2019, Item 209, Article 3, Point 2)

Synthetic record of the risk of functionality loss for considered CI entities (Source: Wiśniewski, 2019, p_105)

Paradigm

My account