INCREASING DISASTER RESILIENCE BY ESTABLISHING A SUSTAINABLE PROCESSTO SUPPORT STANDARDISATION OF TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES

ResiStand: Examining End-User Standardisation Needs for Disaster Resilience

RE17 Conference 20179 November 2017, Birmingham, UK

Dr. Su Anson

Trilateral Research, London, United Kingdom

Call: H2020 Secure Societies 2015

Topic / Type: DRS-6 / CSA

Full name: Increasing disaster resilience by establishing a sustainable process to support standardisation of technologies and services

Duration: 24 months (May 2016 – April 2018)

Effort: 185,5 person months

Funding: 1,96 million €

Coordinator: Geowise Oy, Finland

Partners: 14

Project

Partners

Trilateral Research

Trilateral Research is a leading London-based multidisciplinary research, consulting and technology development company

Our team collaborates across social sciences and technology, to bring insights from each into supporting data driven innovation

Small enterprise (SME) ≈30 staff members

Running 20-25 projects at any given time

Almost all research and technical staff have postdoctoral experience

(≈90% have PhDs)

Extensive publication list and excellent international profile:

http://trilateralresearch.com/full-list-of-publications/

Trilateral Research: Selected Crisis Projects

An agreed way of doing something – it is all about reaching consensus.

Different types of standard (e.g., terminology standard, product standard, service standard). A standard could be about making a product, managing a process, delivering a service or supplying materials – standards can cover a wide range of activities undertaken by organizations and used by their customers.

Standards are the distilled wisdom of people with expertise in their subject matter and who know the needs of the organizations they represent – people such as manufacturers, sellers, buyers, customers, trade associations, users or regulators.

They exist at different levels – International, European, National, & Industry

What is a Standard?

Source: BSI – What is a standard?

Standardisation of Disaster Resilience – European Level

More information: www.cen.eu; www.cenelec.eu; www.etsi.orgwww.resistand.eu - see deliverable D2.1 Overview of standardisation

Very few standards developed

Inadequate participation of stakeholders

No clear path from research projects to standards

Division of work between levels of standardisation

Coordination of work between committees

Slow progress of working groups

EU Security Standardisation Landscape – issues

Project Objectives

Stakeholder Communities

• European & International Standardisation committees and working groups

• Provide information on existing standards and forthcoming new work items

• Benefit from increased efficiency in standard development as well as from definition of standardisation needs and opportunities

Stakeholder Communities

• Organizations using standards in their work (first responders, law enforcement agencies, non-governmental organizations)

• Identify current and future standardisation needs based on their work experience

• Contribute to increased interoperability and compatibility between systems and services

• Receive up-to-date information on existing and future standards

Stakeholder Communities

• Industry, including SMEs and the research community (universities, RTOs)

• Provide understanding of the expectations, drivers and restraints of the community

• Identify potential new technologies, solutions, procedures and practices that can be used as basis for future standardisation

• Benefit from increased efficiency in product development and clear view on standards

198 end-user contacts invited to join

82 registered members representing 75 different organisations and 24 countries (see D3.1 for info)

Research with the end-user community to identify & validate their standardisation needs & understand drivers & constraints:

Survey (35 responses) (see D3.2 for info)

Desk-based research – analysis of 101 EU projects research results (see D3.2 for info)

Workshops (Helsinki, Brussels, Berlin, & Rome)

ResiStand’s End-User Community: Participation

• Organizations using standards in their work (first responders, law enforcement agencies, non-governmental organizations)

• Identify current and future standardisation needs based on their work experience

• Contribute to increased interoperability and compatibility between systems and services

• Receive up-to-date information on existing and future standards

Preliminary standardisation needs identified & clustered to four disaster management phases of mitigation, preparedness, recovery & response:

210 end-user standardisation needs identified from survey, desk research & workshops

Survey identified 35 standardisation needs with the focus on preparedness (14) & response (14) rather than mitigation (5) and recovery (2)

For preparedness, end-users need standards in relation to training, response & recovery planning, & establishing (International) cooperation

For response, end-users need standards in relation to command, control & coordination, warning/crisis communication, & security/law enforcement

ResiStand’s End-User Community: Preliminary Findings

95 standardisation needs identified through desk based research – response (51), preparedness (23), mitigation (19), & recovery (2)

For preparedness standardisation needs predominantly cover response & recovery planning, monitoring & detection, training, & asset management

For response standardisation needs predominantly cover information management, command, control & coordination, & warning/crisis communication

ResiStand’s End-User Community: Preliminary Findings

80 standardisation needs identified from 4 workshops – response (43%), preparedness (42%), recovery (8%) & mitigation (7%) (D3.3)

Needs focus predominantly on common procedures (38%) and data sharing (19%)

Benefits, drivers and restraints of participating in standardisation identified

ResiStand’s End-User Community: Preliminary Findings

Benefits Drivers Restraints

• Learning – standardisation of

best practices

• Improved interoperability

• Increased efficiency

• Common language

• Improved collaboration

• Ability to influence the

standardisation process

• Cost savings

• Legal obligations

• Early development in technical state-

of-the-art

• Preserving the quality of a product

• Involvement and interest of industry

• Increased knowledge of

developments

• Forces organisations to progress

• Standards lack user friendliness

• High standardisation costs

• Lack of mandate and funding

• Conflict between industry and end-users

• Lack of training

• Unknown benefits

• Complex standardisation procedures

1. A roadmap for future standardisation activities critical evaluation of the potential of standards

identification of gaps in the standardisation funnel

prioritization of standardisation needs

standardisation roadmap for improved disaster resilience

2. A sustainable process to improve future standardisation mapping of demand and supply

assessment of standardisation

successful application of standardisation deliverables

will be tested during the project with a work item

exploitation strategy and implementation plan

The Outcome

Better assessment of feasibility and impact of standards

Establishment of a standardisation roadmap at European (CEN/CENELEC) and international (ISO/IEC) levels

Improved coordination of activities at EU and international levels and cross-fertilisation among different sectors

Improved complementary contribution to disaster resilience of populations, crisis and disaster management / civil protection and / or CBRNE systems, tools and services

The Impact

Final conference on 22 March 2018 in Berlin, Germany

Presentation of Standardisation Roadmap

Introduction of the ResiStand Process

Further involvement

Questions

We invite you to join our stakeholder communities: http://resistand.eu/content/join-resistands-stakeholder-communities

Contact: susan.anson@trilateralresearch.com