I would like to draw your attention to a study recently released, hot on the heels of the U.S. election. The report itself not new, but is labelled an "Assessment Study" and is really a message to the government in waiting.
The "Critical Infrastructure Partnership Strategic Assessment Study" is a state-of-the-union type report by the National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) on where the Public / Private partnership on critical infrastructure protection is and what the priorities are for the incoming administration.
First and foremost though, is a description of the partnership itself. The NIAC membership reads like a who's who of the executive level of the biggest business and industry. The Advisory Council helps to overlook the working groups (more councils) belonging to the 16 (national) critical infrastructure sectors. This all comes as a result of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) which creates the "the unifying structure for the integration of critical infrastructure and key resources (CI/KR) protection into a single national program. The NIPP provides an overall framework for programs and activities that are currently underway in the various sectors, as well as new and developing CI/KR protection efforts.
This collaborative effort... "will result in the prioritization of protection initiatives and investments across sectors. It also will ensure that resources are applied where they offer the most benefit for mitigating risk by lowering vulnerabilities, deterring threats, and minimizing the consequences of terrorist attacks and other incidents". This is really good stuff, but this short description does not do justice to the magnitude of the project. I should note that this is a U.S. federal program and similar programs have been, or are being, developed across the globe, including Canada and the Province of Ontario (that I have written about previously).
Although I would like to talk to all of the 24 page PowerPoint summary, that may get a bit tedious. You can download it yourself here. Instead, I will pull out a few gems for discussion.
"Regulation cannot achieve the same level of infrastructure protection success as the partnership". Emergency Management Ontario has recently launched the Supply Chain Alliance program, where the private sector was invited to create an emergency supply chain system for the province during a provincial emergency. As an invitation, not legislated requirement, the program showed unprecedented private sector participation, cooperation and speed of implementation.
"A strong value proposition must be articulated and reaffirmed to sustain private sector participation in the partnership". This is certainly a sentiment that needs re-iteration: private sector businesses are NOT altruistic entities, they must profit to survive. Though profit can be derived from many sources: advertising / marketing, good "PR", exclusivity, etc. To the public sector preferring 'value' can be a creative (and rewarding) process.
"There continues to be an imbalance between the resources available to support the current requirements of the sector partnership model and the demands placed on it." Let's face it, we have many complex systems most work well, but not flawlessly. In order to even approach a high degree of resilience will take a long time and much resources. What is the alternative? That the sum of the parts (costs, fees, breakdowns, higher prices, shifting responsibilities, etc.) will indeed be greater than the whole.
The study illuminates us on what we have always suspected about government bodies: "Productive partnership efforts can get bogged down by inefficient government processes and cumbersome requirements", "Better coordination among government entities will strengthen the partnership", "A lack of partnership experience and skills hinders collaboration." Need I say more? But before you government sector folks get offended, remember I'm one too.
Lastly, this quote on recommendations for the new administration, is one I like best, to "reaffirm the importance of critical infrastructure protection and resilience as a fundamental mission of government and a responsibility of business". Note that these are parallel, but not the same. A "mission" of government, but a "responsibility" of business. This theme is endorsed by business through the Council. Two different agendas, one common outcome: resilience.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Leave a comment