IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v27y2007i3p571-583.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Model (I‐VAM)

Author

Listed:
  • Barry Charles Ezell

Abstract

Quantifying vulnerability to critical infrastructure has not been adequately addressed in the literature. Thus, the purpose of this article is to present a model that quantifies vulnerability. Vulnerability is defined as a measure of system susceptibility to threat scenarios. This article asserts that vulnerability is a condition of the system and it can be quantified using the Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Model (I‐VAM). The model is presented and then applied to a medium‐sized clean water system. The model requires subject matter experts (SMEs) to establish value functions and weights, and to assess protection measures of the system. Simulation is used to account for uncertainty in measurement, aggregate expert assessment, and to yield a vulnerability (Ω) density function. Results demonstrate that I‐VAM is useful to decisionmakers who prefer quantification to qualitative treatment of vulnerability. I‐VAM can be used to quantify vulnerability to other infrastructures, supervisory control and data acquisition systems (SCADA), and distributed control systems (DCS).

Suggested Citation

  • Barry Charles Ezell, 2007. "Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Model (I‐VAM)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 571-583, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:27:y:2007:i:3:p:571-583
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00907.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00907.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00907.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    2. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834, October.
    3. Stan Kaplan & Yacov Y. Haimes & B. John Garrick, 2001. "Fitting Hierarchical Holographic Modeling into the Theory of Scenario Structuring and a Resulting Refinement to the Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5), pages 807-807, October.
    4. Gregory S. Parnell & Harry W. Conley & Jack A. Jackson & Lee J. Lehmkuhl & John M. Andrew, 1998. "Foundations 2025: A Value Model for Evaluating Future Air and Space Forces," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(10), pages 1336-1350, October.
    5. Yacov Y. Haimes & Stan Kaplan & James H. Lambert, 2002. "Risk Filtering, Ranking, and Management Framework Using Hierarchical Holographic Modeling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 383-397, April.
    6. Stan Kaplan, 1997. "The Words of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 407-417, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nicolas Rossignol & Pierre Delvenne & Catrinel Turcanu, 2015. "Rethinking Vulnerability Analysis and Governance with Emphasis on a Participatory Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 129-141, January.
    2. López, Fernando A. & Páez, Antonio & Carrasco, Juan A. & Ruminot, Natalia A., 2017. "Vulnerability of nodes under controlled network topology and flow autocorrelation conditions," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 77-87.
    3. Salim Bouchentouf & Kheloufi Benabdeli, 2021. "From classical management of industrial risks to hazard prediction methods in Algerian industrial environment; a cyndinic approach [De la gestion classique des risques industriels à la prédiction d," Working Papers hal-03162310, HAL.
    4. Eghbal Rashidi & Hugh Medal & Aaron Hoskins, 2018. "An attacker‐defender model for analyzing the vulnerability of initial attack in wildfire suppression," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(2), pages 120-134, March.
    5. Jomthanachai, Suriyan & Wong, Wai-Peng & Soh, Keng-Lin & Lim, Chee-Peng, 2022. "A global trade supply chain vulnerability in COVID-19 pandemic: An assessment metric of risk and resilience-based efficiency of CoDEA method," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    6. Yi‐Ping Fang & Giovanni Sansavini & Enrico Zio, 2019. "An Optimization‐Based Framework for the Identification of Vulnerabilities in Electric Power Grids Exposed to Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(9), pages 1949-1969, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James H. Lambert & Rachel K. Jennings & Nilesh N. Joshi, 2006. "Integration of risk identification with business process models," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 187-198, September.
    2. James H. Lambert & Benjamin L. Schulte & Priya Sarda, 2005. "Tracking the complexity of interactions between risk incidents and engineering systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 262-277, September.
    3. Hong Sun & Fangquan Yang & Peiwen Zhang & Yunxiang Zhao, 2023. "Flight Training Risk Identification and Assessment Based on the HHM-RFRM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-20, January.
    4. Ioanna Ioannou & Jaime E. Cadena & Willy Aspinall & David Lange & Daniel Honfi & Tiziana Rossetto, 2022. "Prioritization of hazards for risk and resilience management through elicitation of expert judgement," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(3), pages 2773-2795, July.
    5. Barry M. Horowitz & Yacov Y. Haimes, 2003. "Risk‐based methodology for scenario tracking, intelligence gathering, and analysis for countering terrorism," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 152-169.
    6. Maria Leung & James H. Lambert & Alexander Mosenthal, 2004. "A Risk‐Based Approach to Setting Priorities in Protecting Bridges Against Terrorist Attacks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 963-984, August.
    7. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    8. Gregory A. Lamm & Yacov Y. Haimes, 2002. "Assessing and managing risks to information assurance: A methodological approach," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(4), pages 286-314.
    9. Andreas Lindhe & Lars Rosén & Tommy Norberg & Jon Røstum & Thomas J. R. Pettersson, 2013. "Uncertainty modelling in multi-criteria analysis of water safety measures," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 195-208, June.
    10. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2009. "On the Complex Definition of Risk: A Systems‐Based Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(12), pages 1647-1654, December.
    11. Wenjun Zhang & Yingjun Zhang & Weiliang Qiao, 2022. "Risk Scenario Evaluation for Intelligent Ships by Mapping Hierarchical Holographic Modeling into Risk Filtering, Ranking and Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, February.
    12. M. F. Leung & J. R. Santos & Y. Y. Haimes, 2003. "Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management of Lahar Flow Threat," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1323-1335, December.
    13. Elizabeth B. Connelly & Lisa M. Colosi & Andres F. Clarens & James H. Lambert, 2015. "Risk Analysis of Biofuels Industry for Aviation with Scenario‐Based Expert Elicitation," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), pages 178-191, March.
    14. Christopher W. Karvetski & James H. Lambert, 2012. "Evaluating deep uncertainties in strategic priority‐setting with an application to facility energy investments," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 483-493, December.
    15. Rogerson, Ellen C. & Lambert, James H., 2012. "Prioritizing risks via several expert perspectives with application to runway safety," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 22-34.
    16. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    17. Matthew H. Henry & Yacov Y. Haimes, 2009. "A Comprehensive Network Security Risk Model for Process Control Networks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 223-248, February.
    18. Amro Nasr & Oskar Larsson Ivanov & Ivar Björnsson & Jonas Johansson & Dániel Honfi, 2021. "Towards a Conceptual Framework for Built Infrastructure Design in an Uncertain Climate: Challenges and Research Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, October.
    19. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    20. Tim Bedford, 2013. "Decision Making for Group Risk Reduction: Dealing with Epistemic Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1884-1898, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:27:y:2007:i:3:p:571-583. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.