Not all critical infrastructures (CIs) can be equally protected. Limited resources in terms of dollars, manpower, time, political will, and so forth mean that assets are in competition for support. Economics and political agendas, plus cultural, psychological, legal, and other factors might also influence the allocation of scarce resources.
Add the choices to this environment of competing interests, and select an allocation model that you would recommend to the governmental or corporate leader who you would hypothetically advise regarding your asset or network. You may also assemble parts and pieces from different strategies depending on any variety of elements you must consider.
There is a bridge in your network that you consider critical, but there are 2 alternate routes in your system by which travelers could bypass a problematic bridge. The original bridge may not be critical or may warrant a lower allocation of maintenance funds, because maintenance could be done more regularly and cheaply with traffic rerouted. In such a case, your allocation model might assign increasing dollars over 5 years to achieve a certain maintenance standard. Unless you are an engineer, you might not know this kind of detail or comprehend such schemes. For this reason and others, you should be researching mitigation measures and solutions from subject-matter sources.
In the attacks of 9/11, Flight 77 crashed into the western face of the Pentagon, killing 184 people on the aircraft and in the building. Many more might have been casualties that day if protective window treatments made of Mylar materials had not been installed in the then-recent renovations of that western area. Broken, flying glass is a cause for many injuries and incapacitation in other explosions. In this case, a relatively simple and somewhat less expensive solution probably saved lives. If given limited funds to protect the Pentagon, one might choose to install only blast-resistant windows. For more on this, see the Pentagon’s Renovation Manager’s news briefing on September 15, 2001, available here.
The allocation model you choose and write about for this Week’s individual project may be 1 of the strategies Ted Lewis discusses, a combination of these models, or a strategy of your own design with or without elements from the other models. Be sure to include the following:
- Be prepared to describe fully how your allocation model works.
- Describe how it would apply for your assigned network or asset.
- You must detail what it will mean in terms of concrete outcomes, or what resources will be applied to your asset or network.
- Determine what impact it might have for other critical infrastructure priorities in your community or company.
- Because you are an advisor to a leader, also discuss various ways the community or company might pay or offset these protection or resilience-enhancing measures.
You should be able to discuss and explain the rationale for any budget or resource allowances you use. This will require additional, comprehensive research. For example, if you discuss increased training for special responders, find out from your real-world community members or company what such training costs. Remember to think comprehensively, using the 360-degree view. If you are training 1 person for a week, what travel costs must be included? Is another person working the trainee’s shifts, and if so, are these hours overtime? What does that cost? How does the agency plan for training costs?
Even hypothetical scenarios should have real-world facts and figures to draw upon. Provide and properly cite sources for budgets, measures, ideas, recommendations, and so forth that are drawn from external sources. Your report should be 2–3 pages, in text citation, not including a title or reference page, and may include tables, graphs, lists, or whatever format you believe clearly delivers the basis for your allocation strategy.
Please submit your assignment.
Evey, L. (2001). DOD News Briefing on Pentagon Renovation [Interview transcript]. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Defense http://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/or…
Harrald, J. R., Renda-Tanali, I., Shaw, G. L., Rubin, C. B., Yeletaysi, S. (2004). Review of risk based prioritization/decision making methodologies for dams. Washington, DC: The George Washington University Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management.