FORCE Project – End of financed duration of the project

The FORCE project is now successfully coming to an end and I am pleased to say that
the project has successfully met all its objectives. The main result is the development
of an Intelligent Decision Support System (IDSS), mapping 28 Security foresight
projects and studies from the EU and beyond. This is available for you to use free of
charge and without registration at http://idss.force-europe.eu.

FORCE started in April 2014

The FORCE team is made up of Foresight, software and communication experts, whose expertise has come together to solve the problems and issues of presenting Foresight information across a large number of projects in an intuitive way and focusing on enabling users to retrieve meaningful information according to their needs. The IDSS is a unique source of information for Foresight studies and projects in the last five years which can be used as a research and training tool and will help decision makers in their Foresight efforts and make recent foresight work sustainable, re-usable and accessible. The IDSS is built as a scalable, sustainable tool, designed for continued development beyond the end of the project, which can connect to external data, and we encourage its continued use, including
continued mapping and uploading of current and future EU foresight projects.

Share This:

The FORCE IDSS is now available

The FORCE project ends on 31st March 2016. The main outcome of the project is the IDSS (http://idss.force-europe.eu).

Public access is available using the username: guest and password: guest.

Further information:
The main rationale behind IDSS
The main components of the IDSS
How to find information using IDSS search tool.
How to update information stored in online based system
How to suggest a project related to foresight security to IDSS.

For a quick insight into the FORCE project and IDSS a video has been produced. Watch it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06X-1EnnXL4

 

Share This:

Final Synthesis Report on Security Oriented Foresight Mapping of Outputs and Methods

This policy brief integrates the results of reviewing and mapping recent security foresight projects and initiatives as well as insights gained from interviews and workshops conducted with security experts and decision makers.

This Policy Brief is based on the research conducted under FORCE WP3 – Review of recent and current research related to security-oriented Foresight and Horizon-scanning activities. A full version of the results can be found in the deliverable report “D3.1 – Final Synthesis Report on Security Oriented Foresight Mapping of Outputs and Methods” – and may be downloaded from the FORCE website (www.force-europe.eu)

Foresight processes.

There are several sources that describe, compare and analyse foresight methods. The following table includes a short description of some of the more popular foresight methods including their strengths and weaknesses and is based on Popper[1], on the Millennium Project[2] and on the foresight guide by Jackson[3].

Foresight methods strengths and weaknesses
Method’s name Short description Strengths Weaknesses
Brainstorming A creative and interactive method used in face-to-face and online group working sessions to generate new ideas around a specific area of interest. It is fast, collaborative, cheap, commonly known and proven. It may produce out-of-the-box thinking. It is insufficiently robust underlying thinking if no other foresight tools are used.
Delphi A technique that involves repeated polling of the same individuals, feeding back anonymised responses from earlier rounds of polling. Anonymity. Ability to explore objectively issues that require judgment. Powerful technique when used to seek answers to appropriate questions. Difficult to perform well (e.g. choice of participants). The ease with which questions can be asked for which better techniques exist. The time that it takes.
Scenarios Systematic and internally consistent visions of plausible future states of affairs

 

Help in developing plans that are viable over the wide range of possible futures. Open up the mind to hitherto unimaginable possibilities. Can be mistakenly assumed as official possible futures. Can fail to be useful when their authors either fear criticism for saying too many things that seem too “far out”. The practice of scenarios is very time-consuming.
Future Wheel Structural brainstorming where a certain event or trend is analysed by imagining its primary impacts and secondary impacts.

 

It is easy and enjoyable to use. It gets people thinking about the future quickly. Can help identify positive and negative feedback loops. It moves the mind from linear, hierarchical, and simplistic thinking to more network-oriented, organic, and complex thinking.

 

The complexity of the overview can become overwhelming. It can also yield contradictory impacts. It is no better than the collective judgments of those involved.
Wild Cards Events with perceived low probability of occurrence but potentially high impact if they were to occur. An approach to overcoming blind spots in our perceptions of the future. Helps to understand dramatic events and discontinuities. Wild Cards seem far-fetched, implausible and impossible. Their concept is steel vague. Many efforts are needed to convince people that they are valuable. Not always fit with organisational environments.
Morphological Analysis A method for rigorously structuring and investigating the internal relationships of inherently non-quantifiable socio-technical problem complexes. It defines structured variables and creates a real dynamic world. It can help discover new relationships that were overlooked before and encourage the identification of boundary conditions.

 

It requires strong and experienced facilitation. It takes relatively long time to complete. The outputs of the process are no better than the quality of its inputs.
Trend Impact Analysis A forecasting technique which examines the cause, nature, potential impact, likelihood and speed of arrival of an emerging issue of change. It is relatively simple to perform and it is cost effective. It forces consideration of non-linear trend extrapolation. It also offers sensitivity analysis.

 

It relies on judgement and suffers from situations of incomplete variables.
Roadmapping A method which outlines the future of a field of technology, generating a timeline for development of various interrelated technologies and (sometimes) including factors like regulatory and market structures. It provides information to make better technology investment decisions. Help clarify alternatives in complex situations. Generate a plan to develop technology alternatives.

 

It is costly and time consuming activity. It may fail to consider other emerging forces impinging on the roadmap. It requires knowledge on the process of roadmapping.

 

More recently, Saritas et. Al.[4] described 10 typical selection criteria for foresight methods, including:

  1. Proof of concept (method’s “success”),
  2. Availability of resources,
  3. Time constraints,
  4. Level of participation desired,
  5. Type of stakeholders engagement,
  6. Suitability for combination with other methods,
  7. Prior experience and familiarity,
  8. Objectives,
  9. Quantitative and qualitative data requirements, and
  10. Methodological competence.

The research on foresight methods selection is still developing as stated in a recent article on combining qualitative and quantitative methods[5]: “The selection of methods in FTA[6] remains largely a context-driven issue, as there are no ‘recipe books’ and only limited attempts to better clarify the relation between context, content and approach of an FTA project”. The “limited attempts” referred to are the EFP[7] and the work of Popper[8], Keenan and others that accompanied it.

Mapping of security foresight activities

The mapping phase of the FORCE project includes methods and outcomes from a wide variety of sources, including past foresight-oriented EU projects and other foresight studies in the security domain from the last 5 years. Efforts were made to enrich the information sources through scanning national and international foresight networks.

The mapping process was preceded by interviews with potential users of the FORCE decision support tool. The interviews provided feedback for the mapping process about potential users needs and made data collection more efficient. The information gathered included trends, threats, technologies, scenarios, wild cards & weak signals, and recommendations.

The mapping included also foresight methods, including some relatively new methods that are relevant also to the security domain but were not used in the projects that we have mapped. Some of these methods are already practiced in countries such as Germany, Singapore and the US. These are mainly quantitative methods enabled by recent technological advances, such as big data, crowdsourcing, and system dynamics.

Interviews with security experts

Altogether 18 interviews were conducted in the FORCE project and the experts interviewed were mainly from national police organisations, research centres/think thanks and ministries of interior/defence.

Security foresight was assessed as being of high or medium importance by a large majority of the interviewees (15 out of 18, 84% of the sample). 12 experts indicated that foresight has a high added value for policy and strategy in their organisations. These findings strengthen the basic premise that FORCE is based upon, and that is to provide end users with structured data extracted from security foresight projects.

The experts interviewed tend to have more interest in risks and threats as well as in technology trends rather than in societal trends. Trends and threats concerning cyber-crimes and terrorism were cited as examples of topics that are more relevant and interesting, as well as topics such as encryption, the dark web, 3D printing and robotics.

As for the ideal time frame of security foresight results, half of the interviewees indicated that the most relevant time frame for their organisation is short-term (between 1 and 5 years) while 7 interviewees indicated more than 5 years as their preferred time-horizon. According to one of the interviewees any analysis of more than 5 years would require all assumptions to be frequently revised and adapted to changing circumstances.

Only a few interviewees mentioned that foresight activities are carried out and integrated within the decision–making process of their organisations (4 out of 18). The integration of foresight activities into the decision making process is in a majority of cases based on informal processes, such as presentation of reports, papers, or policy briefs to decision/policy makers. Overall, as one respondent remarked, it is very difficult to assess how far the results of foresight activities are integrated in, or impact decision-making, especially in public bodies.

Most of the respondents said that they use all or nearly all the sources identified in the interview template. The next table lists specific resources mentioned by the experts in the interviews.

Sources of information mentioned
Sources of information
International and European Reports Reports EUROPOL (SOCTA, TE-SAT)

NATO cyber centre documentation (www.ccdcoe.org)

Interpol and Europol reports

Documents produced by the European Defence Agency

FP7 projects

Reports produced by national sources/authorities US State Department reports

UK government Foresight Projects www.gov.uk/government/collections/foresight-projects

Reports produced by think tank such as RAND Corporation, Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC), Ifri, Pearls in Policing.

Reports produced internally by your organisation or for your organisation Internal Horizon Scanning bulletins, reports based on information collected by the network of security officers in Embassies.
Conferences International learning conference (“The pearls in policing”)
Media Magazine ‘Foreign Affairs’

 

Most of the interviewees were not aware of the EU projects mentioned in the interviews. Only three interviewees were familiar with some of the projects, namely FESTOS, FORESEC, EURACOM, PATS, SERON, SECURENV and DESSI. Most of the interviewees indicated that they would appreciate knowing more about these sources and the potential for them to add value to their activities.

As for usage of foresight methods, the most frequent methods that were mentioned in the interviews are internal meetings, expert panels, focus groups, brainstorming, SWOT analyses, impact analyses and scenarios. The majority of interviewees are practitioners and do not master methodologies, but emphasized their interest in a user friendly tool enabling them to understand methodological aspects of foresight.

The interviewees were asked to point out the most valuable types of outcomes. “Vision, scenarios and forecasts”, as well as “TEEPSE, drivers, trends and megatrends” are most valuable for respondents. Key and emerging technologies also have high and medium added value whereas wild cards seems less valuable to respondents. Models and frameworks are the least valuable among all foresight outputs.

[1] https://rafaelpopper.wordpress.com/foresight-methods

[2] Glenn, J. C. And Gordon T. J., “Futures Research Methodology Version 3.0”, http://www.millennium-project.org/millennium/FRM-V3.html

[3] Jackson, M., “Practical Foresight Guide: Chapter 3. Methods”, www.shapingtomorrow.com/media-centre/pf-ch03.pdf

[4] Saritas, O., et. al., “The Evolution of the Use of Foresight Methods: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research Output for Cutting Edge FTA Approaches”, 5th International Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis, 2014. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/fta2014-t3practice_185.pdf

[5] Haegeman, K. et. al., “Quantitative and Qualitative approaches in Future-oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): From combination to integration?”, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 386-397

[6] Future-Oriented Technology Analysis

[7] European Foresight Platform. http://www.foresight-platform.eu/

[8] Popper, R., “How are foresight methods selected?”, in: foresight, 10 (6), 62-89 (2008)

Share This:

FORCE @ the European Security Research: The Next Wave

ESR 2015 aimed to foster the engagement with experts from different backgrounds and understandings in the area of security research, be it from a standardisation, policy making, crisis and emergency first responder perspective or be it from the scientific and research community perspective.

The event took place at the Grand hotel, Malahide Co. Dublin, Ireland, 4-6 November 2015. Michael Remes (EFPC (UK)) and Alexandre Almeida (LOBA) attended the event on behalf of FORCE”. More info about the event can be found at http://www.esrdublin2015.eu/.

IMG_5175 IMG_5188

This event was designed for high engagement and linked up European security research with the community of First Responders in emergency and crisis management, cyber-security, experts in Big Data, international organisations, academic, standardisation and policy makers.
Under the auspices of the National Standards Authority of Ireland, this Dublin event presented a great opportunity for engagement with experts from different backgrounds and understandings in the area of security research, be it from a standardisation, policy making, crisis and emergency first responder perspective or be it from the scientific and research community perspective.

IMG_5191IMG_5186

Public info from FORCE was put into the FORCE Dropbox including public deliverables (D4.1: International Feedback and Design Workshop for a Foresight Exploration Model – Workshop Report; D5.1 Report of Software Selection Criteria) FORCE leaflet, FORCE Poster, Newsletter 1 and Newsletter 2.

FORCE had an exhibition stand at the event for all three days, and also gave a one-hour theatre presentation during the event about FORCE.
Michael and Alex presented a one-hour theatre presentation on 05 November 2015 from 14:30 to 15:30. The event was entitled “FORCE IDSS – An Intelligent Decision Support System for Security Foresight research”. The event was very informative with important networking opportunities.

Share This:

Review and mapping of methodologies for effective evaluation of future security risks to society

Share This:

The main goal of the FORCE project is to develop a decision support system enabling effective evaluation and execution of security foresight efforts. It includes three main stages – mapping of recent EU Security Foresight Projects, developing a Foresight Model and developing an Intelligent Decision Support System (IDSS).

This policy brief includes the results of reviewing and mapping of 24 recent EU Security Foresight Projects as well as some insights based on other publications related to security foresight. Efforts were made to enrich the information sources through scanning national and international foresight networks. It is intended to provide a metadata[1] that is necessary to the subsequent development of the foresight model and the decision support tool.


This Policy Brief is based on the research conducted under FORCE WP3 – Review of recent and current research related to security-oriented Foresight and Horizon-scanning activities. A full version of the results can be found in the deliverable report “D3.1 – Review and mapping of methodologies for effective evaluation of future security risks to society” – and may be downloaded from the FORCE website (www.force-europe.eu) as soon he is approved by EC.


Foresight methods

Security foresight projects generally follow a process encompassing typical elements including the application of various foresight methods. Each foresight method has its unique strengths and weaknesses. Delphi, for example, is a well-established technique that is intended to elicit experts’ judgement while avoiding a dominating influence of high-status advocates. It is a powerful technique for exploring issues objectively but it is also difficult sometimes to recruit participants for Delphi surveys. Foresight methods selection is a complex process that includes several (around 10) selection criteria.

The research done so far on how to combine foresight methods is still very basic and does not concern ‘optimal’ choice of methods. Foresight methods are still selected based on human intuition and experience. Based on the EFMN database[2] the most widely used foresight methods were literature review (54%), expert panels (50%) and scenarios (42%). The database enables the analysis of methods that are often employed together. Brainstorming, for example, is performed together mostly with future workshops, SWOT, key technologies, Delphi, environmental scanning and interviews.

Evaluating foresight processes and projects

There are several approaches for evaluating foresight processes and projects. Such evaluations usually include the criteria such as Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Appropriateness, Utility and Impact. The main indicator in foresight evaluation is the impact of foresight activities, although impact is generally difficult to assess. Evaluation of foresight projects is still a scarce phenomenon and scientific work on foresight evaluation models is still in progress.

The type of outcomes generated by security foresight projects include (among others) trends, threats and risks, scenarios, wild cards and weak signals, methods, and technologies. In the “D3.1. Review and mapping of methodologies for effective evaluation of future security risks to society” report we provide a sample of these outcomes rated by relevance. The criterion measures how well retrieved information meets the information needs of a potential user of the FORCE IDSS.

Mapping Results

Some of the security foresight projects are focused on developing new methods for the specific needs of the security sector. In the ETCETERA[3] project, for example, the main objective was to develop a methodology for identification of technology dependency risks and to recommend research agenda to deal with these risks.

Some foresight projects use a larger number of foresight methods relative to others. Projects iKNOW[4] and SANDERA[5] lead in this respect with 11 methods and 10 methods, followed by ETCETERA (8) and ETTIS[6] (7). The number of foresight methods used can be a measure of triangulation, which is the use of various methods to study the same topic in order to increase the quality of the findings.

Some projects were quite effective in the use of foresight methods. Project iKNOW, for example, was effective in generating a varied list of wild cards and weak signals using a combination of literature review, environmental scanning, expert panels, futures workshops, brainstorming, interviews, Delphi and web-based crowdsourcing.

Conclusions

Some of the security foresight projects mapped in FORCE suffer from weaknesses that can be overcome by the use of modern quantitative foresight methods as we learn from recent research. It is recommended to combine qualitative and quantitative foresight methods. It is also recommended to apply statistical methods for long term projections or early warning systems, such as time series analysis and indicator-based models. Other examples of relatively new foresight methods include agent based models[7] and models based on machine learning and big data.

The security domain is being impacted by growing complexity and uncertainties emanating from hyper connectivity and posing serious threats to society. Such situations mandate the use of novel foresight methods, such as wild cards, gaming, crowdsourcing, agent based models and the global participatory platform advocated by “Future ICT”[8].

Several examples of using novel foresight methods are mentioned within D3.1, including the Worldwide Integrated Crisis Early Warning System (W-ICEWS)[9], The Good Judgement Project[10], Risk Assessment and Horizon Scanning (RAHS)[11] and Online Foresight Platforms such as the Institute for the Future’s (IFTF) Foresight Engine and Wikistrat[12].

24 projects mapped in FORCE
Project acronym Full name Main objective Web site
ETCETERA Evaluation of critical and emerging technologies for the elaboration of a security research agenda Develop methodology to identify technology dependency risks http://www.etcetera-project.eu/
ACRIMAS Aftermath Crisis Management System-of-systems Demonstration

 

Develop aftermath crisis management demonstration roadmap http://www.acrimas.eu/
VALUESEC Cost-benefit analysis of current and future security measures in Europe Develop tool-set for cost-benefit analysis of security measures http://www.valuesec.eu/
STRAW Security technology active watch Provide tool for detecting new threats and technologies http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/46098_en.html
ESPAS European strategy and policy analysis system Map major existing trends that are likely to shape the future http://europa.eu/espas/index_en.htm
Security Jam 2012 Security Jam 2012 – Brainstorming global security Identify and discuss global pressing challenges in defence and security policy http://tinyurl.com/oox28ko
iKNOW Interconnecting knowledge for the early identification of issues, events

and developments (…) shaping and shaking the future of STI in the ERA

Elucidate wild cards and weak signals likely to impact the ERA http://wiwe.iknowfutures.eu/
DESSI Decision support on security investment Provide participatory assessment process that accounts for complex societal dimensions in security investments decisions http://securitydecisions.org/
SANDERA Security and defence in the European research area Foresight future relationships between ERA and EU’s security policies to promote stronger coordination https://sandera.portals.mbs.ac.uk
STAR-TRANS Strategic Risk Assessment and Contingency Planning in Interconnected Transport Networks To strengthen the overall security management of interconnected and interdependent transport networks http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/55235_en.html
EU-GRASP Changing multilateralism: The EU as a global regional

actor in security and peace

Studying the role of the EU as a global-regional actor in security and peace www.eugrasp.eu
GST5 Global Strategic Trends – Out to 2045 To describe possible futures to provide a strategic context for policy- and decision-makers across the UK Government; To inform policy-makers as they grapple with the opportunities and threats that the future could bring. www.gov.uk/government/publications/global-strategic-trends-out-to-2045
FESTOS Foresight of Evolving Security Threats Posed by Emerging Technologies To identify and assess security threats posed by the potential abuse of selected emerging technologies http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/53833_en.html
Global Europe 2050 Global Europe 2050 To construct a number of scenarios on the condition of the EU in 2050 https://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/global-europe-2050-report_en.pdf
SERON Security of Road Transport Network to investigate the impacts of possible manmade attacks on the transport network (tunnels and bridges) www.seron-project.eu
EURACOM EUropean Risk Assessment and COntingency planning Methodologies for interconnected energy networks Elaborate a common European methodology for risk management and contingency planning; promote a dialogue between energy and security stakeholders; support European policies for the protection of critical energy infrastructures www.eos-eu.com/?Page=euracom
PREDICT PREparing for the Domino effect in Crisis siTuations

 

To provide a comprehensive solution for dealing with cascading effects in multi-sectoral crisis situations covering aspects of critical infrastructures. www.predict-project.eu/
SESTI Scanning for Emerging Science and Technology Issues

 

To contribute to the development of an effective trans-national system for early identification of weak signals and emerging issues. http://eravisions.eu/stocktaking/36

http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/54730_en.html

FOCUS Foresight Security Scenarios: Mapping Research to a Comprehensive Approach to Exogenous EU Roles To develop an effective long-term foresight and assessment tool at the EU level, that will help shape European security research to enable the EU to effectively respond to tomorrow’s challenges stemming from the globalization of risks, threats and vulnerabilities.
ETTIS European Security Trends and Threats In Society to identify, and assess in a scenarios framework future threats, needs and opportunities for societal security, to develop and test a methodological approach and model for security research priority setting, to derive research priorities, to help increase awareness of security research results, and contribute to overcoming barriers by advancing and testing a range of intelligence tools and techniques http://ettis-project.eu/
FORESEC Cooperation in the Context of Complexity:

European Security in Light of Evolving Trends, Drivers, and Threats

To facilitate, through a participatory foresight process, the emergence of a shared vision and coherent and holistic approach to current and future threats and challenges for European security. To assess whether a shared European concept of security could be identified. http://tinyurl.com/kcxqyya

[1] Metadata summarizes basic information about data, which can make finding and working with particular instances of data easier – http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/metadata

[2] The EFMN was launched in 2004 to keep track of science and technology (S&T) foresight activities being carried out in Europe and elsewhere, and to promote exchanges of information and greater interaction among foresight experts and policy researchers. Central to this initiative is the mapping and analysis of the European foresight landscape, used to inform and guide EU policy with regard to S&T research and innovation.

[3] http://www.etcetera-project.eu/

[4] http://wiwe.iknowfutures.eu/

[5] https://sandera.portals.mbs.ac.uk

[6] http://ettis-project.eu/

[7] http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/abmread.htm

[8] http://www.futurict.eu

[9] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/W-ICEWS.html

[10] http://www.goodjudgment.com/

[11] Durst, C. et al. “A Holistic Approach to Strategic Foresight: A Foresight Support System for the German Federal Armed Forces”, Technological Forecasting & Social Change (2014)

[12] http://www.iftf.org/foresightengine/

Share This:

The FORCE project by Michael Remes

Share This:

Taking the opportunity of the participation at the ESR 2015 event that took place at Dublin, Ireland, 4-6 November 2015, Michael Remes recorded a video where he presents the FORCE project. Take some minutes to watch it here.

Share This:

BMBF “End User Key – demand orientation as a success factor”, 14.-15. October, Brussels.

Share This:

The two days workshop “End User Key – demand orientation as a success factor”, was organized by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), and took place on the 14th and 15th October 2015 in Brussels. The workshop addressed issues of better integration of the State and private end-users in Security Research. Next to an improved integration of end-users, the workshop aimed at developing more synergies between the national and international Security Research Programs.

Part of the workshop was a poster session, where different participants presented their posters. Different end-users from police, firefighters associations, civil protection, disaster prevention etc. have been approached by the FORCE poster, and showed their interest in the use of the IDSS.

Share This:

Security Jam: Security Community’s largest summit

Share This:

Security Jam is a bi-annual digitally held Conference of Security Community professionals. Two thousand three hundred participants from 129 countries met in October 2014 to debate security challenges and issue recommendations for Institutional action. Security Jam’s format was established in 2012 and the Conference was previously organised in Brussels by the Security and Defence Agenda, now integrated into Friends of Europe, a European think tank.
Security Jam 2014 produced ten recommendations that identify urgent issues and inform institutional actors of what the Community considers effective solutions.

secjam22

Listing these:
1. The new EU & NATO leaders should update their organisations’ security strategies, coordinating more closely to ensure greater coherence and mutual reinforcement in shaping the security environment.
2. EU & NATO governments’ strategic communications efforts must be made more coherent and effective so as to counter hostile narratives and underline universal values of democracy and self-determination.
3. NATO, the EU and the OSCE should stimulate the creation of an Organisation for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East with countries in the region.
4. NATO’s Defence Planning Process should be faster and more innovative to spur nations and industry to deal more effectively with rapidly changing threats.
5. NATO should build resilience to absorb asymmetric threats and unconventional attacks by coordinating the work of its Centres of Excellence to this end.
6. The EU should set up and maintain an up-to-date and public common picture of migration, asylum and human trafficking flows and operations to ensure an integrated, comprehensive and coherent approach, just as ReliefWeb does for disaster response.
7. EU & NATO gender-inclusiveness efforts should be, in the context of UNSCR 1325, strengthened by substantial increases in the number of women in the forces on the ground engaged in intelligence and information operations.
8. The UN Special Envoy to Syria and others engaged in mediation should reinforce the importance of UNSCR 1325, seeking to ensure that women, including female combatants fighting IS, are fully represented at all stages of the peace and reconciliation process.
9. National and regional cyber security bodies should promote the creation of an international ‘Cyberpol’ cyber security agency supported by major international organisations such as the UN, EU, IMF, World Bank, NATO and the OSCE.
10. The EU, NATO and governments should actively encourage and support universities in cyber security research and education.

The cross-issue, cross-sector, cross-institutional nature of these recommendations contribute to Security Jam’s reputation as a relevant venue for debate and reflection on security policy planning.
More information may be found at http://www.friendsofeurope.org/event/security-jam-2014-brainstorming-global-security/

Share This:

FORCE FORESIGHT MODEL AND FORCE-IDSS IN DECISION MAKING PROCESS

Share This:

The main goal of decisions makers is to produce rational decisions in a rapidly changing, continuously evolving, complex, demanding and global context. The rational decisions require analysis of a huge volume of data from disparate sources to solve poorly defined problems. Decision makers use tools known as Decision Support System to drive the whole decision making process.

Intelligent Decision Support Systems – IDSS – are software tools aimed to help Decision Makers throughout the decision making process. IDSS systems fundamentally aggregate and analyse data providing the information in a useful manner whereby decision makers can observe and understand the context’s problem at a glance.

FORCE IDSS

IDSS provides some cognitive functions using artificial intelligence tools integrated in the system. These tools are used together with others knowledge sources, like expert opinions, best practices and lessons learned.

FORCE aims to design an IDSS, integrating the FORCE Foresight model into a comprehensive architecture, fulfilling the FORCE end-users expectations within the security domain in the short, medium and long term.

The FORCE-IDSS aims to help decision makers produce rational choices better and easily. It will help decision makers to understand properly the problems or opportunities, putting the problem in the proper context, identifying actions and alternatives, collecting appropriate information, examining solutions and monitoring the results. In their challenging working environments, decision makers must take advantage of the technological advances in human computer interfaces (HCI).

FORCE- BLOG

As a starting point, a reference architecture for the FORCE-IDSS has been defined to fulfil end-user expectations. The reference architecture will satisfy end-user needs and an evolvable and comprehensive software stack has been identified based on predefined software criteria. Three main components have been identified: User Interface, Knowledge Base and Foresight Model. The software stack will be integrated according to this reference architecture extracting and analysing data and interacting with the end-user in a friendly and effective fashion.

The IDSS will have as a basis an underlying Foresight Model which will be developed in the course of the project. The FORCE Foresight Model will be fully integrated within the

FORCE-IDSS Reference architecture. It will be based on the findings from mapping and reviewing European foresight studies in the last 5 years and the state of the art in foresight methodologies. Together with experts from the field of foresight, security and technology we are deriving a comprehensive schema accessing the knowledge of security foresight and identifying new insights from findings and interdependencies.

In developing the Foresight Model we are incorporating end-user views from the beginning via interviews and workshops.

Share This: