Complexity Aided Design: the FuturICT Technological Innovation Paradigm

"In the next century, planet earth will don an electronic skin. It will use the Internet as a scaffold to support and transmit its sensations. This skin is already being stitched together. It consists of millions of embedded electronic measuring devices: thermostats, pressure gauges, pollution detectors, cameras, microphones, glucose sensors, EKGs, electroencephalographs. These will probe and monitor cities and endangered species, the atmosphere, our ships, highways and fleets of trucks, our conversations, our bodies--even our dreams ....What will the earth's new skin permit us to feel? How will we use its surges of sensation? For several years--maybe for a decade--there will be no central nervous system to manage this vast signaling network. Certainly there will be no central intelligence...some qualities of self-awareness will emerge once the Net is sensually enhanced. Sensuality is only one force pushing the Net toward intelligence". These statements are quoted by an interview by Cherry Murray, Dean of the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Professor of Physics. It is interesting to outline the timeliness and highly predicting power of these statements. In particular, we would like to point to the relevance of the question "What will the earth's new skin permit us to feel?" to the work we are going to discuss in this paper. There are many additional compelling questions, as for example: "How can the electronic earth's skin be made more resilient?"; "How can the earth's electronic skin be improved to better satisfy the need of our society?";"What can the science of complex systems contribute to this endeavour?

Smart Energy Grids and Complexity Science

This report proposes ideas and an approach to address present and future challenges in future smart energy systems through the particular lenses of complexity sciences. Complexities arising inside and around emerging energy distribution systems prompt a multilayered and integrated approach in which different disciplines and areas of expertize are pooled together. The interfaces between system layers and intellectual disciplines are the focus, rather than on the details of any individual layer or the particularities of one approach. A group of people sharing this view and willing to procede in this way organized a workshop at the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Petten, the Netherlands on 24th June 2012.Experts from different field of expertise convened to present their current research and discuss the future challenges of emerging smart energy systems via the afore-mentioned perspectives.JRC.F.3-Energy securit

Smart Grids and Complexity Science

Postprint (published version

Methodologies synthesis

This deliverable deals with the modelling and analysis of interdependencies between critical infrastructures, focussing attention on two interdependent infrastructures studied in the context of CRUTIAL: the electric power infrastructure and the information infrastructures supporting management, control and maintenance functionality. The main objectives are: 1) investigate the main challenges to be addressed for the analysis and modelling of interdependencies, 2) review the modelling methodologies and tools that can be used to address these challenges and support the evaluation of the impact of interdependencies on the dependability and resilience of the service delivered to the users, and 3) present the preliminary directions investigated so far by the CRUTIAL consortium for describing and modelling interdependencies

Critical Infrastructure Protection Approaches: Analytical Outlook on Capacity Responsiveness to Dynamic Trends

Overview: Critical infrastructures (CIs) – any asset with a functionality that is critical to normal societal functions, safety, security, economic or social wellbeing of people, and disruption or destruction of which would have a very significant negative societal impact. CIs are clearly central to the normal functioning of a nation’s economy and require to be protected from both intentional and unintentional sabotages. It is important to correctly discern and aptly manage security risks within CI domains. The protection (security) of CIs and their networks can provide clear benefits to owner organizations and nations including: enabling the attainment of a properly functioning social environment and economic market, improving service security, enabling integration to external markets, and enabling service recipients (consumers, clients, and users) to benefit from new and emerging technological developments. To effectively secure CI system, firstly, it is crucial to understand three things - what can happen, how likely it is to happen, and the consequences of such happenings. One way to achieve this is through modelling and simulations of CI attributes, functionalities, operations, and behaviours to support security analysis perspectives, and especially considering the dynamics in trends and technological adoptions. Despite the availability of several security-related CI modelling approaches (tools and techniques), trends such as inter-networking, internet and IoT integrations raise new issues. Part of the issues relate to how to effectively (more precisely and realistically) model the complex behavior of interconnected CIs and their protection as system of systems (SoS). This report attempts to address the broad goal around this issue by reviewing a sample of critical infrastructure protection approaches; comprising tools, techniques, and frameworks (methodologies). The analysis covers contexts relating to the types of critical infrastructures, applicable modelling techniques, risk management scope covered, considerations for resilience, interdependency, and policy and regulations factors. Key Findings: This research presents the following key findings: 1. There is not a single specific Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) approach – tool, technique, methodology or framework – that exists or emerges as a ‘fit-for-all’; to allow the modelling and simulation of cyber security risks, resilience, dependency, and impact attributes in all critical infrastructure set-ups. 2. Typically, two or more modelling techniques can be (need to be) merged to cover a broader scope and context of modelling and simulation applications (areas) to achieve desirable highlevel protection and security for critical infrastructures. 3. Empirical-based, network-based, agent-based, and system dynamics-based modelling techniques are more widely used, and all offer gains for their use. 4. The deciding factors for choosing modelling techniques often rest on; complexity of use, popularity of approach, types and objectives of user Organisation and sector. 5. The scope of modelling functions and operations also help to strike the balance between ‘specificity’ and ‘generality’ of modelling technique and approach for the gains of in-depth analysis and wider coverage respectively. 6. Interdependency and resilience modelling and simulations in critical infrastructure operations, as well as associated security and safety risks; are crucial characteristics that need to be considered and explored in revising existing or developing new CIP modelling approaches. Recommendations: Key recommendations from this research include: 1. Other critical infrastructure sectors such as emergency services, food & agriculture, and dams; need to draw lessons from the energy and transportation sectors for the successive benefits of: i. Amplifying the drive and efforts towards evaluating and understanding security risks to their infrastructure and operations. ii. Support better understanding of any associated dependencies and cascading impacts. iii. Learning how to establish effective security and resilience. iv. Support the decision-making process linked with measuring the effectiveness of preparedness activities and investments. v. Improve the behavioural security-related responses of CI to disturbances or disruptions. 2. Security-related critical infrastructure modelling approaches should be developed or revised to include wider scopes of security risk management – from identification to effectiveness evaluations, to support: i. Appropriate alignment and responsiveness to the dynamic trends introduced by new technologies such as IoT and IIoT. ii. Dynamic security risk management – especially the assessment section needs to be more dynamic than static, to address the recurrent and impactful risks that emerge in critical infrastructures

A Review of Critical Infrastructure Protection Approaches: Improving Security through Responsiveness to the Dynamic Modelling Landscape

As new technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT) are integrated into Critical National Infrastructures (CNI), new cybersecurity threats emerge that require specific security solutions. Approaches used for analysis include the modelling and simulation of critical infrastructure systems using attributes, functionalities, operations, and behaviours to support various security analysis viewpoints, recognising and appropriately managing associated security risks. With several critical infrastructure protection approaches available, the question of how to effectively model the complex behaviour of interconnected CNI elements and to configure their protection as a system-of-systems remains a challenge. Using a systematic review approach, existing critical infrastructure protection approaches (tools and techniques) are examined to determine their suitability given trends like IoT, and effective security modelling and analysis issues. It is found that empirical-based, agent-based, system dynamics-based, and network-based modelling are more commonly applied than economic-based and equation-based techniques, and empirical-based modelling is the most widely used. The energy and transportation critical infrastructure sectors reflect the most responsive sectors, and no one Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) approach – tool, technique, methodology or framework – provides a ‘fit-for-all’ capacity for all-round attribute modelling and simulation of security risks. Typically, deciding factors for CIP choices to adopt are often dominated by trade-offs between ‘complexity of use’ and ‘popularity of approach’, as well as between ‘specificity’ and ‘generality’ of application in sectors. Improved security modelling is feasible via; appropriate tweaking of CIP approaches to include a wider scope of security risk management, functional responsiveness to interdependency, resilience and policy formulation requirements, and collaborative information sharing between public and private sectors