Assessing Security of Supply: Three Methods Used in Finland

Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)

Abstract

Public Private Partnership (PPP) has an important role in securing supply in Finland. Three methods are used in assessing the level of security of supply. First, in national expert groups, a linear mathematical model has been used. The model is based on interdependency estimates. It ranks societal functions or its more detailed components, such as items in the food supply chain, according to the effect and risk pertinent to the interdependencies. Second, the security of supply is assessed in industrial branch committees (clusters and pools) in the form of indicators. The level of security of supply is assessed against five generic factors (dimension 1) and tens of business branch specific functions (dimension 2). Third, in two thousand individual critical companies, the maturity of operational continuity management is assessed using Capability Maturity Model (CMM) in an extranet application. The pool committees and authorities obtain an anonymous summary. The assessments are used in allocating efforts for securing supply. The efforts may be new instructions, training, exercising, and in some cases, investment and regulation.

Keywords

Public Private Partnership Critical Infrastructure Food Supply Chain Critical Production Risk Ranking 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

A copy of this article will also be published in the web pages of National Emergency Supply Agency http://www.nesa.fii.

References

  1. The EFQM (2009)(formerly European Foundation for Quality Management) Excellence Model http://ww1.efqm.org/en/Home/aboutEFQM/Ourmodels/TheEFQMExcellenceModel/tabid/170/Default.aspx
  2. Government decision on the targets of security of supply 21.8.2008/539Google Scholar
  3. ISO/PAS 22399 (2007) Societal security — Guideline for incident preparedness and operational continuity managementGoogle Scholar
  4. Humphrey, Watts S. (1987) Characterizing the Software Process: A Maturity Framework. IEEE Software, vol. 56, no. 2, March 1988, pp. 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Laki huoltovarmuuden turvaamisesta 18.12.1992/1390 (Security of Supply Act) http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1992/19921390
  6. Mathews, John H. (2004a) The Power Method for Eigenvectors. California State University Fullerton, Department of Mathematics. http://math.fullerton.edu/mathews/n2003/PowerMethodMod.html Google Scholar
  7. Mathews, John H. (2004b) Power Method Proof. California State University Fullerton, Department of Mathematics. http://mathews.ecs.fullerton.edu/n2003/powermethod/PowerMethodProof.pdf Google Scholar
  8. National Emergency Supply Agency (2009a) Internet pages http://www.huoltovarmuus.fi/ http://www.nesa.fi/
  9. National Emergency Supply Agency (2009b) System definition for the new extranet HUOVIGoogle Scholar
  10. Nenadic, Zoran (2002) Counting Process. California Institute of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering. http://robotics.caltech.edu/~zoran/Research/poisson/node1.html Google Scholar
  11. Sivonen, Hannu (2005a) Yhteiskunnan huoltovarmuuden kannalta keskeisten toimintojen riskiarviointi (Finnish for Risk Assessment of Functions Vital to Society’s Security of Supply) Publications of National Emergency Supply Agency #2/2005 http://www.huoltovarmuus.fi/documents/3/HVK_JULK_20052_Keskeisten_toimintojen_riskiarviointi_web.pdf Google Scholar
  12. Sivonen, Hannu (2005b) Internal instructions for the National Emergency Supply Organisation on security of supply indicatorsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Emergency Supply AgencyHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations