Organisational Pattern Driven Recovery Mechanisms

  • Valentina Di Giacomo
  • Domenico Presenza
  • Carlo Riccucci
Part of the Advances in Information Security book series (ADIS, volume 45)


The process of reaction to system failures and security attacks is strongly influenced by its infrastructural, procedural and organisational settings. Analysis of reaction procedures and practices from different domains (Air Traffic Management, Response to Computer Security Incident, Response to emergencies, recovery in Chemical Process Industry) highlight three key requirements for this activity: smooth collaboration and coordination among responders, accurate monitoring and management of resources and ability to adapt pre-established reaction plans to the actual context. The SERENITY Reaction Mechanisms (SRM) is the subsystem of the SERENITY Run-time Framework aimed to provide SERENITY aware AmI settings (i.e. socio-technical systems with highly distributed dynamic services) with functionalities to implement applications specific reaction strategies. The SRM uses SERENITY Organisational S&D Patterns as run-time models to drive these three key functionalities.


Reaction Plan Incident Response Faulty Sensor Partial Delegation Serenity Organisational 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    International Civil Aviation Organization (2005) Threat and Error Management (TEM) in Air Traffic Control. PRELIMINARY EDITION. Accessed July 2008
  2. 2.
    Alberts C, Dorofee A, Killcrece G, Ruefle R, Zajicek M (2004) Defining Incident Management Processes for CSIRTs: A Work in Progress.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grance T, Kent K, Kim B (2004) Computer Security Incident Handling Guide. NIST Special Publication: 800–861Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van de Walle B, Turoff M (2007) Emergency Response Systems: Emerging Trends and Technologies. Communications of the ACM Vol.50. No.3Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kanse L, van der Schaaf TW, Vrijland ND, van Mierlo H, Comparing Two Approaches to Failure Recovery: Medication Preparation versus Chemical Plants,Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Merisol M, Saidane A (2000) A tool to Support Function Allocation. Workshop on Safety and Usability Concern in Aviation, Toulouse (France)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carver L, Turoff M (2007) Human-Computer Interaction: the Human and Computer as a Team in Emergency Management Information Systems. Communications of the ACM Vol.50. No.3Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roth EM, Multer J, Raslear T (2006) Shared Situation Awareness as a Contributor to High Reliability Performance. In Railroad Operations Organization Studies 27: 967–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    SERENITY Project (2006) Security and privacy requirements at organisational level. SERENITY Deliverable A1.D2.1Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    SERENITY Project (2008) Enhanced version of network and devices security analysis and verification tools. SERENITY Deliverable A3.D3.2Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dix A, Rodden T, Davies N, Trevor J, Friday A, Palfreyman K (2000) Exploiting Space and Location as a Design Framework for Interactive Mobile Systems. ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 7, No. 3Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Agrawal A et al (2007) WS-BPEL Extension for People (BPEL4People), Version 1.0. Accessed July 2008
  13. 13.
    SERENITY Project (2008) Extended set of S&D patterns at organizational level. SERENITY Deliverable A1.D3.2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valentina Di Giacomo
    • 1
  • Domenico Presenza
    • 2
  • Carlo Riccucci
    • 3
  1. 1.Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A.
  2. 2.Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A.
  3. 3.Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A.

Personalised recommendations