In case of a major cyber incident, organizations usually rely on external providers of Cyber Incident Response (CIR) services. CIR consultants operate in a dynamic and constantly changing environment in which they must actively engage in information management and problem solving while adapting to complex circumstances. In this challenging environment CIR consultants need to make critical decisions about what to advise clients that are impacted by a major cyber incident. Despite its relevance, CIR decision making is an understudied topic. The objective of this preliminary investigation is therefore to understand what decision-making strategies experienced CIR consultants use during challenging incidents and to offer suggestions for training and decision-aiding. A general understanding of operational decision making under pressure, uncertainty, and high stakes was established by reviewing the body of knowledge known as Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM). The general conclusion of NDM research is that experts usually make adequate decisions based on (fast) recognition of the situation and applying the most obvious (default) response pattern that has worked in similar situations in the past. In exceptional situations, however, this way of recognition-primed decision-making results in suboptimal decisions as experts are likely to miss conflicting cues once the situation is quickly recognized under pressure. Understanding the default response pattern and the rare occasions in which this response pattern could be ineffective is therefore key for improving and aiding cyber incident response decision making. Therefore, we interviewed six experienced CIR consultants and used the critical decision method (CDM) to learn how they made decisions under challenging conditions. The main conclusion is that the default response pattern for CIR consultants during cyber breaches is to reduce uncertainty as much as possible by gathering and investigating data and thus delay decision making about eradication until the investigation is completed. According to the respondents, this strategy usually works well and provides the most assurance that the threat actor can be completely removed from the network. However, the majority of respondents could recall at least one case in which this strategy (in hindsight) resulted in unnecessary theft of data or damage. Interestingly, this finding is strikingly different from other operational decision-making domains such as the military, police and fire service in which there is a general tendency to act rapidly instead of searching for more information. The main advice is that training and decision aiding of (novice) cyber incident responders should be aimed at the following: (a) make cyber incident responders aware of how recognition-primed decision making works; (b) discuss the default response strategy that typically works well in several scenarios; (c) explain the exception and how the exception can be recognized; (d) provide alternative response strategies that work better in exceptional situations.
Workpackage 8.1 of the IANOS project is dedicated to developing a community engagement strategy that can be applied in the use cases on the lighthouse islands (Ameland and Terceira) and the fellow islands (Lampedusa, Nisyros and Bora Bora). This report is the deliverable of WP8.1.Within this report an approach to designing a community engagement strategy is formulated that is rooted in scientific research and enriched by best practices from the light house islands and fellow islands.The report describes a general approach to designing a community engagement strategy, that consists of three parts. The first part is dedicated to assessing the situation and project that the community engagement strategy is dedicated to. It describes several factors that are rooted in literature on community engagement and psychological theories. Thesefactors should be assessed in order to be able to design an effective community engagement strategy. The results of this assessment will be used in the second part of the general approach, which describes a method for designing a community engagement strategy. This method is rooted in community engagement literature and draws heavily on some earlier EU projects. The method describes about ten items that together constitutethe strategy and that encompass all relevant issues that need to be addressed in designing community engagement. Finally, the third part of the general approach, describes the way the method and the assessment can be applied in a methodic and robust way. Although the general method is described as a theoretically based approach, it is substantiated not only by theoretical studies, but also by many reports on practical application of various community engagement efforts. In addition to that, all participantsfrom the islands have identified some best practices on community engagement from their own region and/or experience. These best practices are analysed according to the method of meta-analysis. The information from this meta-analysis is used to check the suitability of the general approach and leads to emphasizing those aspects of the approach that are identified as more important within the best practices.
MULTIFILE
The design of a spatial distribution structure is of strategic importance for companies, to meet required customer service levels and to keep logistics costs as low as possible. Spatial distribution structure decisions concern distribution channel layout – i.e. the spatial layout of the transport and storage system – as well as distribution centre location(s). This paper examines the importance of seven main factors and 33 sub-factors that determine these decisions. The Best-Worst Method (BWM) was used to identify the factor weights, with pairwise comparison data being collected through a survey. The results indicate that the main factor is logistics costs. Logistics experts and decision makers respectively identify customer demand and service level as second most important factor. Important sub-factors are demand volatility, delivery time and perishability. This is the first study that quantifies the weights of the factors behind spatial distribution structure decisions. The factors and weights facilitate managerial decision-making with regard to spatial distribution structures for companies that ship a broad range of products with different characteristics. Public policy-makers can use the results to support the development of land use plans that provide facilities and services for a mix of industries.
The energy transition is a highly complex technical and societal challenge, coping with e.g. existing ownership situations, intrusive retrofit measures, slow decision-making processes and uneven value distribution. Large scale retrofitting activities insulating multiple buildings at once is urgently needed to reach the climate targets but the decision-making of retrofitting in buildings with shared ownership is challenging. Each owner is accountable for his own energy bill (and footprint), giving a limited action scope. This has led to a fragmented response to the energy retrofitting challenge with negligible levels of building energy efficiency improvements conducted by multiple actors. Aggregating the energy design process on a building level would allow more systemic decisions to happen and offer the access to alternative types of funding for owners. “Collect Your Retrofits” intends to design a generic and collective retrofit approach in the challenging context of monumental areas. As there are no standardised approaches to conduct historical building energy retrofits, solutions are tailor-made, making the process expensive and unattractive for owners. The project will develop this approach under real conditions of two communities: a self-organised “woongroep” and a “VvE” in the historic centre of Amsterdam. Retrofit designs will be identified based on energy performance, carbon emissions, comfort and costs so that a prioritisation strategy can be drawn. Instead of each owner investing into their own energy retrofitting, the neighbourhood will invest into the most impactful measures and ensure that the generated economic value is retained locally in order to make further sustainable investments and thus accelerating the transition of the area to a CO2-neutral environment.
