A resilience engineering approach to integrating human and socio-technical system capacities and processes for national infrastructure resilience

John E. Thomas, Daniel A. Eisenberg, Thomas Seager, Erik Fisher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Despite Federal directives calling for an integrated approach to strengthening the resilience of critical infrastructure systems, little is known about the relationship between human behavior and infrastructure resilience. While it is well recognized that human response can either amplify or mitigate catastrophe, the role of human or psychological resilience when infrastructure systems are confronted with surprise remains an oversight in policy documents and resilience research. Existing research treats human resilience and technological resilience as separate capacities that may create stress conditions that act upon one another. There remains a knowledge gap regarding study of those attributes in each that build infrastructure resilience as an integrated system of humans and technologies. This work draws on concepts found in the resilience engineering and psychology literature to examine the dynamic relationships between human resilience and the resilience of complex, socio-technical critical infrastructure systems. We identify and organize 18 system capacities and 23 human capacities that influence infrastructure resilience. We then correlate individual human and system resilience capacities to determine how each influences four socio-technical processes for resilience: sensing, anticipating, adapting, and learning. Our analysis shows that the human and technical resilience capacities reviewed are interconnected, interrelated, and interdependent. Further, we find current literature is focused more on cognitive and behavioral dimensions of human resilience and we offer ways to better incorporate affective capacities. Together, we present a simple way to link the resilience of technological systems to the cognitive, behavioral, and affective dimensions of humans responsible for the system design, operation, and management.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Critical infrastructures
resilience
infrastructure
engineering
Systems analysis
Socio-technical systems
Resilience
knowledge gap
integrated system

Keywords

  • critical infrastructure
  • human resilience
  • resilience
  • resilience engineering
  • socio-technical systems

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)
  • Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
  • Safety Research

Cite this

@article{c40753c2f71648ce94f9fd516d61e891,
title = "A resilience engineering approach to integrating human and socio-technical system capacities and processes for national infrastructure resilience",
abstract = "Despite Federal directives calling for an integrated approach to strengthening the resilience of critical infrastructure systems, little is known about the relationship between human behavior and infrastructure resilience. While it is well recognized that human response can either amplify or mitigate catastrophe, the role of human or psychological resilience when infrastructure systems are confronted with surprise remains an oversight in policy documents and resilience research. Existing research treats human resilience and technological resilience as separate capacities that may create stress conditions that act upon one another. There remains a knowledge gap regarding study of those attributes in each that build infrastructure resilience as an integrated system of humans and technologies. This work draws on concepts found in the resilience engineering and psychology literature to examine the dynamic relationships between human resilience and the resilience of complex, socio-technical critical infrastructure systems. We identify and organize 18 system capacities and 23 human capacities that influence infrastructure resilience. We then correlate individual human and system resilience capacities to determine how each influences four socio-technical processes for resilience: sensing, anticipating, adapting, and learning. Our analysis shows that the human and technical resilience capacities reviewed are interconnected, interrelated, and interdependent. Further, we find current literature is focused more on cognitive and behavioral dimensions of human resilience and we offer ways to better incorporate affective capacities. Together, we present a simple way to link the resilience of technological systems to the cognitive, behavioral, and affective dimensions of humans responsible for the system design, operation, and management.",
keywords = "critical infrastructure, human resilience, resilience, resilience engineering, socio-technical systems",
author = "Thomas, {John E.} and Eisenberg, {Daniel A.} and Thomas Seager and Erik Fisher",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1515/jhsem-2017-0019",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management",
issn = "1547-7355",
publisher = "Berkeley Electronic Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A resilience engineering approach to integrating human and socio-technical system capacities and processes for national infrastructure resilience

AU - Thomas, John E.

AU - Eisenberg, Daniel A.

AU - Seager, Thomas

AU - Fisher, Erik

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Despite Federal directives calling for an integrated approach to strengthening the resilience of critical infrastructure systems, little is known about the relationship between human behavior and infrastructure resilience. While it is well recognized that human response can either amplify or mitigate catastrophe, the role of human or psychological resilience when infrastructure systems are confronted with surprise remains an oversight in policy documents and resilience research. Existing research treats human resilience and technological resilience as separate capacities that may create stress conditions that act upon one another. There remains a knowledge gap regarding study of those attributes in each that build infrastructure resilience as an integrated system of humans and technologies. This work draws on concepts found in the resilience engineering and psychology literature to examine the dynamic relationships between human resilience and the resilience of complex, socio-technical critical infrastructure systems. We identify and organize 18 system capacities and 23 human capacities that influence infrastructure resilience. We then correlate individual human and system resilience capacities to determine how each influences four socio-technical processes for resilience: sensing, anticipating, adapting, and learning. Our analysis shows that the human and technical resilience capacities reviewed are interconnected, interrelated, and interdependent. Further, we find current literature is focused more on cognitive and behavioral dimensions of human resilience and we offer ways to better incorporate affective capacities. Together, we present a simple way to link the resilience of technological systems to the cognitive, behavioral, and affective dimensions of humans responsible for the system design, operation, and management.

AB - Despite Federal directives calling for an integrated approach to strengthening the resilience of critical infrastructure systems, little is known about the relationship between human behavior and infrastructure resilience. While it is well recognized that human response can either amplify or mitigate catastrophe, the role of human or psychological resilience when infrastructure systems are confronted with surprise remains an oversight in policy documents and resilience research. Existing research treats human resilience and technological resilience as separate capacities that may create stress conditions that act upon one another. There remains a knowledge gap regarding study of those attributes in each that build infrastructure resilience as an integrated system of humans and technologies. This work draws on concepts found in the resilience engineering and psychology literature to examine the dynamic relationships between human resilience and the resilience of complex, socio-technical critical infrastructure systems. We identify and organize 18 system capacities and 23 human capacities that influence infrastructure resilience. We then correlate individual human and system resilience capacities to determine how each influences four socio-technical processes for resilience: sensing, anticipating, adapting, and learning. Our analysis shows that the human and technical resilience capacities reviewed are interconnected, interrelated, and interdependent. Further, we find current literature is focused more on cognitive and behavioral dimensions of human resilience and we offer ways to better incorporate affective capacities. Together, we present a simple way to link the resilience of technological systems to the cognitive, behavioral, and affective dimensions of humans responsible for the system design, operation, and management.

KW - critical infrastructure

KW - human resilience

KW - resilience

KW - resilience engineering

KW - socio-technical systems

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064129270&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064129270&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1515/jhsem-2017-0019

DO - 10.1515/jhsem-2017-0019

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management

JF - Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management

SN - 1547-7355

ER -