Prioritising in the Digital Twin

As we look into the future of the UK, it is generally agreed that we must better understand and have a more positive effect on the society in which we live. Studying Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the provision of infrastructure to supply water, food and homeostasis are essential for society to exist and thrive. The resilience of this infrastructure and our ability to understand how that will impact on society I would feel is critical towards the survival and growth of any country.

 

The monetary value of an asset and its impact on the regional, national and global economies can be relatively easy to measure, but this economic value may not have any bearing on its value to society.

Demonstrated in the recent power outage and also when the UK Somerset levels flooded a few years ago, we have little understanding on how each of our infrastructure networks interact and impact on each other. Each owner may understand their own network, but each records things in different ways and in different formats, making a cross sector analysis difficult or perhaps currently impossible

In my opinion and many others, I interact with, the current NISMOD (National Infrastructure Systems Model) methodology is complex, difficult to access and requires significant data to carry out. This prevents/ reduces its use by local authorities and infrastructure owners who are reluctant to spend time and money on training staff, conducting the data collection and analysis and effectively managing the outcome.

A significant portion of the work in how to map infrastructure and define its criticality, vulnerability, recoverability and societal impact has already been done through engagement between CPNI (Centre Protection of National Infrastructure), Government Departments and Industry. 

 

The UK armed forces are also using rapid assessment and analysis tools to assist in resilience assessment and disaster recovery in many locations around the world. As you would expect these methods are simple yet powerful in carrying out these tasks. There are multiple examples of this that have already been done.

In my opinion one of the most significant tasks for national infrastructure resilience would be to quantify, measure and create the ability to monitor the impact of each asset (and to define what level of granularity) in the cross-sector network on local, regional and national society.

This can have many factors which create a complex set of information variables; for example, a relatively low value water pumping station may provide clean water to a big proportion of a city or the exact same asset in a different location may provide it to a few thousand homes. Those in the city have no way of gathering fresh water from natural resources, but may be able to purchase bottled water, which can be transported in along another piece of infrastructure. So, the financial value might be the same, but the social value may be vastly different based on many different factors.

Secondly and one might argue more importantly is that the expertise to conduct cross-sector analysis from a resilience perspective (other than NISMOD) is missing. The utility of a simplified method as used by the military would allow wide-scale dis-aggregation of the analysis, allowing more cross sector collaboration to occur.

Having been exposed to most of the major infrastructure owners around the world and specifically their asset information management during both CAPEX and OPEX phases of the lifecycle I can see the barriers to addressing these falling as follows:

  1. Mandating any National Infrastructure Recoverability Attributes will take political, managerial and monetary resources.

  2. Each individual organisation records different information about their assets with different methods of measurement and definition. This is an interoperability nightmare when we need to combine information from across sectors in times of national disaster.

  3.  Most Infrastructure is privately owned and therefore specifically directs their functional/ performance monitoring information towards economic targets. These targets are restricted to what benefits them or their shareholders.

  4. Commercially they only know that their electricity is supplied by X or that the communications is supported by Y. They don’t necessarily (need or want to) understand which substation, power line or transformer delivers it or what those suppliers rely on to uphold their delivery.

  5. They have little or no concept of how their infrastructure impacts society on a local, regional or national level.

  6. Once a database of the “hubs and connectors” across all sectors has been established this will cause its own two issues:

  • Keeping this up to date and ensuring information is kept accurate and unpolluted. (as soon as information is deemed untrustworthy stakeholders are less likely to want to rely on it.

  • Some of the data model will contain highly sensitive information that in the right hands can be used to make significant decisions around UK infrastructure, but in the wrong hands could be used to destroy the very thing we wish to protect. Data security and controls will therefore be key strategically.

   7. Culture and history: Each organisation will have their own way of doing things and will declare that         they’ve been doing it the longest and their way is best. They will then argue that everyone else                 must do it the way they do it.

 

Before getting them to change or do additional work a significant barrier must be overcome in dealing with the culture and attitudes of the organisations. Removing these barriers by delivering an “outsider” solution that is already proven, is simple and will cost them nothing to educate their staff will be essential.

I feel that having a Nationally Recognised simplified approach will help to resolve all of the issues listed above

CARVER

The CARVER analysis methodology has been used since the 1940’s to help analyse the importance of assets in conjunction with post war reconstruction. The method was revised and updated by the Royal Engineers to form the basis of their “Infrastructure Assessment” methodology designed to assist in the relief efforts of countries after natural disasters. Helping to map out the cross-sector infrastructure and identify the priorities of efforts aimed at stabilising society and helping them to recover. Most recently this was conducted in Nepal after the earthquake and the British Virgin Islands after hurricane Irma hit.

This proven methodology starts with identifying key assets, creating a link matrix for each sector down to the agreed level, creating both physical and diagrammatic networks before carrying out a Criticality, Accessibility, Recoverability, Vulnerability, Effect and Recognisability analysis.

To conduct this analysis, a set of criteria is defined that will give the user a score out of 5 for each of these 6 CARVER headings. It can be a very subjective analysis but through experience very rapid. This is followed by 2 simple calculations where the scores for Accessibility, Vulnerability and Recognisability are combined to give a Likelihood score and Criticality, Recoverability and Effect are combined to give an Importance score. The total of all of them is the CARVER score, giving you a priority list for your limited resourced relief efforts in this sector.

This single sector assessment is then brought together with other sectors and an interdependent cross-sector analysis is conducted.

The final report identifies areas of concern that are critical to national infrastructure, where vulnerabilities lay and what planning needs to be put in place to increase resilience.

A demonstration project was recently conducted using a wastewater treatment plant as a microcosm of national infrastructure, as it contained interdependent “hubs and connectors” from Transport, Water, Communications, Power, Sanitation, Fuels and Chemicals. This study was conducted in using permissive and non-permissive data gathering techniques, to demonstrate what could be achieved in a disaster zone that was too hazardous for humans to be present.

The non-permissive team used autonomous technologies, open source data and their cross-sector infrastructure knowledge to deliver a full analysis of the site within 48 hours. This analysis closely matched the permissive team apart from a few minor differences.

This proven approach could be easily scaled up to deal with national infrastructure, taught to each of the sectors to ensure consistency and then brought together in a nationwide resilience database. This could also form the foundations of a National Digital Twin.

The Human element

Whilst I am writing this, the world is in the grip of an international crisis. COVID19 has swept across the globe causing a disaster and response unprecedented in human history.

During the crisis the nation must decide what is essential, so that only those who are needed to take risks do so, so we flatten the infection curve and help our health service to tackle the mass casualties when they happen.

Our infrastructure is not automated and requires skilled people to intervene at many key stages in its lifecycle. This critical national infrastructure will cease to support our society, if those key workers can no longer interact with their assets and keep them running.

Another level of CARVER analysis is required looking at the human vulnerabilities and the critical nature of these resources to support our way of life. Once identified then we must have additional people trained up or cross skilled from less critical departments to step into that person’s place if the worst happens!

As we move into the future and robotic and automated opportunities present themselves, the roles identified should be those prioritised.

© 2017 - 2020 by COMIT Projects Ltd.

 

  • LinkedIn Classic
  • YouTube App Icon