Application of Problem Inversion to Cascading Critical Infrastructure Failure

Abstract

Between 1994 and 2013, over 6800 natural disasters have occurred worldwide, claiming 1.35 million lives. Flooding accounted for over 40 % of these disasters displacing nearly 2.5 billion people. Storms were the second most frequent type of disaster: killing more than 240,000 people and costing over US$900 billion in damage to infrastructure. It is commonly felt that the number of severe natural disasters has been increasing in recent years because of climate change. However, the problem of climate change may not be solved in the near future. So governments need to prepare for frequent future natural disasters and find ways to mitigate the potential death and destruction they cause. This chapter will discuss a novel method for making preparations to avoid the problem of cascading disasters created by a single natural event. This approach will adapt a knowledge based technique from manufacturing, called Ideation Failure Analysis™, to correct deficiencies in critical infrastructure. The technique involves a number of approaches that are combined into a comprehensive process. First, a simple direct approach is attempted with the assistance of a knowledge base. If the problem can not be resolved in the direct manner, then an indirect approach is suggested. A detailed Failure Analysis Questionnaire is used to assist in model building. A model of the failure network is developed. However, instead to working directly towards failure correction, an inversion process is conducted. That is, in order to facilitate greater creativity, the analysis team is asked to imagine ways to produce the failure. The creative work is then assisted by a knowledge base. The analysis team is able to prioritize the likelihood that a cause might have resulted in the failure. The next step is to find ways to prevent, eliminate, or reduce the impact of the failure. Again to assist the creative process, a knowledge base provides suggestions for correction techniques that can be prioritized in a hierarchical fashion. Finally, the results are evaluated to avoid negative side-effects or drawbacks in the suggested ways to correct the failure. This chapter will conclude by providing some recommendations and an evaluation of the potential of this technique.