Common Information Systems Maturity Validation Resilience Readiness Levels (ResRLs)

  • Rauno PirinenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 976)


This revised study expands a series of investigations of the resilience readiness levels (ResRLs) of information systems, including their aspects, factors, definitions, criteria, references, and questionnaires. The aim is to contribute to the combined total maturity measures approach and the pre-operational validation of shared and adaptive information services and systems. The overall research question is followed: How can ResRLs be understood in the domain of shared operative information systems and services? The purpose of the study to improve the manner of information systems acceptance, operational validation, pre-order validation, risk assessment, the development of adaptive mechanisms, and the integration of information systems and services by actors and authorities across national borders. The main contribution of the study is in the validation of the maturity of operative information systems regarding their resilience, including the examination of several factors and descriptions of technical resilience. In addition to the validation of maturity, the study expands the revised compatibility of maturity levels by upgrading the ResRLs seven-layer model to the nine-level model according to technological readiness levels (TRLs) and integration readiness levels (IRLs) to improve the responsiveness of the European Operational Concept Validation framework.


Common information sharing Resilience Resilience readiness level Maturity model Operational validation Technical resilience 


  1. 1.
    Pirinen, R.: Towards common information systems maturity validation - resilience readiness levels (ResRL). In: Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, pp. 259–266. Scitepress, Madeira (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mankins, J.: Technology Readiness Levels. A White Paper. NASA, Washington (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sauser, B., Gove, R., Forbes, E., Ramirez-Marquez, J.: Integration maturity metrics: development of an integration readiness level. Inf. Knowl. Syst. Manag. 9(1), 17–46 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL): European Operational Concept Validation Methodology Homepage. Accessed 10 Apr 2018
  5. 5.
    Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D.K., Mead, M.: The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Q. 11(3), 369–386 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eisenhardt, K.M.: Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14(1), 532–550 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    George, A.L., Bennett, A.: Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, 4th edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M.: Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Robson, C.: Real World Research, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research Design and Methods, 4th edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herr, K., Anderson, G.L.: The action research dissertation: a guide for students and faculty, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Atooh-Okine, N.O.: Resilience Engineering Models and Analysis, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, New York (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kott, A., Abdelzaher, T.: Resiliency and robustness of complex systems and networks. In: Suri, N., Cabri, G. (eds.) Adaptive, Dynamic and Resilient Systems, pp. 67–85. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walker, J., Cooper, M.: Genealogies of resilience: from systems ecology to the political economy of crisis adaptation. Secur. Dialogue 42, 143–160 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Adger, N.W.: Social and ecological resilience: are they related. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 24(3), 347–364 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Suri, N., Cabri, G.: Adaptive, Dynamic and Resilient Systems, 1st edn. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holling, C.S.: Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4, 1–23 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pirinen, R.: Towards common information sharing: study of integration readiness levels. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, pp. 355–364. Scitepress, Lisbon (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilson, G.: Community resilience, globalization, and transitional pathways. Geoforum 43(6), 1218–1231 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brassett, J., Vaughan-Williams, N.: Security and the performative politics of resilience: critical infrastructure protection and humanitarian emergency preparedness. Secur. Dialogue 46(1), 32–50 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tanenbaum, A.S.: Computer Networks, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eisner, H.: Systems Engineering: Building Successful Systems, 1st edn. Morgan & Claypools, San Rafael (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sauser, B., Verma, D., Ramirez-Marquez, J., Gove, R.: From TRL to SRL: the concept of systems readiness levels. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Systems Engineering Research, Los Angeles, paper #126, pp. 1–10 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pirinen, R.: Studies of integration readiness levels: case shared maritime situational awareness system. In: Proceedings of the Joint Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference, pp. 212–215. IEEE, The Hague (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pirinen, R., Sivlén, E., Mantere, E.: Samples of externally funded research and development projects in higher education: case integration readiness levels. In: Proceedings of the IEEE World Engineering Education Forum, Dubai, United Arab Emirate, pp. 691–700 (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zimmermann, H.: OSI reference model: the ISO model of architecture for open systems interconnection. IEEE Trans. Commun. 24(4), 425–432 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Beasley, J.S.: Networking, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, Boston (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peterson, L.L., Davie, B.S.: Computer Networks: A System Approach, 5th edn. Elsevier, Burlington (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mankins, J.: Technology readiness assessments: a retrospective. Acta Astronaut. 65, 1216–1223 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tan, W., Ramirez-Marquez, J., Sauser, B.: A probabilistic approach to system maturity assessment. Syst. Eng. 14(3), 279–293 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Patton, M.: Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London (1990)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sivlén, E., Pirinen, R.: Utilization of the integration readiness level in the context of industrial system projects. In: Proceedings of the IEEE World Engineering Education Forum (WEEF-2014), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, pp. 701–710 (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mantere, E., Pirinen, R.: Utilization of the integration readiness level in operative systems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE World Engineering Education Forum (WEEF-2014), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, pp. 726–735 (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stake, R.: The Art of Case Study Research, 1st edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1995)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Los Angeles (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Campbell, D.T., Fiske, D.W.: Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 56, 81–105 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dubé, L., Paré, G.: Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices, trends and recommendation. MIS Q. 27(4), 597–635 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Davison, R.M., Martinsons, M.G., Kock, N.: Principles of canonical action research. Inf. Syst. J. 14, 65–86 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Luna, S., Lopes, A., Tao, H., Zapata, F., Pineda, R.: Integration, verification, validation, test, and evaluation (IVVT&E) framework for system of systems (SoS). Procedia Comput. Sci. 20, 298–305 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Aanestad, M., Jensen, T.B.: Building nation-wide information infrastructures in healthcare through modular implementation strategies. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 20, 161–176 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hanseth, O., Lyytinen, K.: Design theory for dynamic complexity in information infrastructures: the case of building internet. J. Inf. Technol. 28, 1–19 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The National Defense UniversityHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Laurea University of Applied SciencesEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations