Enhancing Critical Infrastructure Resilience Through Stakeholder Dialogue

(1)

1

Master Thesis

Master of Crisis and Security Management 2015-2016

Enhancing Critical Infrastructure Resilience Through Stakeholder Dialogue

Author: Janro de Bont Student number: S1646788

Date: 09-06-2016

First reader and supervisor: Assistant professor J. Matthys Second reader: Professor E. Bakker

Second supervisor: PhD student P. Blokland Third supervisor: Professor G.L.L. Reniers

(2)

2

1. Introduction

Modern societies are increasingly dependent on the reliable performance of Critical Infrastructure (CI) networks to sustain the welfare of society and provide collective goods and services (Boin, Lagadec, Michel-Kerjan & Overdijk, 2003, p.99; Boin & McConnel, 2007, p.50; Labaka, Hernantes & Sarriegi, 2015, p.92; Ouyang & Wang, 2015, p.74; Ridley, 2011, p.111). CIs are “large-scale socio-technical systems” (Sinclair, 2009, p.64) that provide vital facilities such as, but not limited to, power (electricity and gas), water, telecommunication, transportation, health care, banking and law enforcement (De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007, p.18). CIs form the “foundation” (Sinclair, 2009, p.45) of modern societies and their disruption or breakdown can have devastating effects on economic wellbeing (Boin & McConnel, 2007, p.50; De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007, p.18) and national security (Ridley, 2011, p.111; Rinaldi, 2004, p.1). The devastating effects of CI breakdowns have been displayed, for example, by the New York City blackout (1977), the Hindsale Telecommunication Center Fire in Chicago (1988), the Auckland power outage (1998), the Canadian ice storm (1998), the ‘Millennium bug’ (1999), and the California energy crisis (2001) (Boin et al., 2003, p.99). The importance of CI functions within the context of contemporary society (Ridley, 2011, p.111) emphasizes the need for reliable CI networks. In addition, since modern societies have become “accustomed” to highly reliably CIs (Sinclair, 2009, p.46), they are less able to “cope with unreliability in the provision of vital services”, which further increases the need for reliable CI networks (De Bruijne, 2006, p.10). Consequently, the profound dependency of modern societies on CIs has made these societies more vulnerable to unpredictable events (Boin & McConnel, 2007, p.50; Egan, 2007).

Interconnectivity and institutional fragmentation of modern CIs

While modern societies rely heavily on CIs for the provision of vital services, these systems have become increasingly interconnected, interdependent and institutionally fragmented (Sinclair, 2009). The growing interdependency of CIs is a direct result of technological developments and the “transnationalisation of economies and infrastructures” (Pursiainen, 2009, p.721). Since CIs do not exist in a vacuum they are subjected to external events and disruptions (Egan, 2007, p.7). Regarding the interconnectivity and interdependency of CIs, these external events and disruptions can have a “domino-like effect” (Sinclair, 2009, p.55) throughout the whole network of CIs, subsequently increasing their vulnerability (Ouyang & Wang, 2015, p.74; Ridley, 2011, p.114). In addition, the governance of CIs networks has become problematic since modern trends of “privatization, liberalization and deregulation” (De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007, p.19) have led to the institutional fragmentation of CIs (Jennings & Lodge, 2010, p.165). As a result, the structure of CI industries has become more horizontal and “network-based”, consequently turning the “reliable provision of vital services… from a primarily intra-organizational task to an inter-intra-organizational challenge” (De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007, p.19). The reliable management of CIs through networks instead of a centralized vertical structure is more complicated because different organizations have divergent interests, goals, world views and values; the sharing of information requires continuous communication and coordination; there is a tendency towards centralization; and actions aimed at managing reliability within one section of the network can (negatively) effect other sections of the network (De Bruijne, 2006, p.74-76).

From anticipation to resilience

The fragmentation and interconnectedness of modern CIs increases the possibilities for unforeseen system interactions, consequently making CIs more unpredictable and susceptible to surprises (De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007, p.21; Sinclair, 2009, p.61). The increased complexity of CI networks has created an operating environment where “isolation has become obsolete” (Boin et al., 2003, p.99) and “conditions for effective anticipation have deteriorated” (De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007, p.22). Acknowledging the seemingly impossible task of identifying a crisis before it occurs (Boin, Hart, Stern & Sundelius, 2005, p.38) the notion of critical infrastructure protection, which emphasizes anticipation as the main risk management strategy, no longer suffices to guarantee the reliable

(4)

4 management of contemporary networked CIs (Boin et al., 2003; De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007; Egan, 2007; Pursiainen, 2009; Sinclair, 2009). Regarding the potential disasters resulting from CI breakdowns and the limitations of conventional crisis management, resilience has been proposed as a promising approach to cope with the increasing complexity of crises and CI-systems (Boin et al., 2003; Boin & Lagadec, 2000; Boin & McConnel, 2007; De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007; Egan, 2007; Pursiainen, 2009; Sinclair, 2009). According to De Bruijne (2006), who conducted research on the effects of CI restructuring on the reliability of service provision, high reliability is achieved within a “networked environment… with a relative emphasis on resilience” (p.390). When analyzing the academic literature it becomes evident that the resilience engineering framework indeed offers innovative opportunities to deal with the complexities of socio-technical systems, like CIs, and sustain safety in a continuously changing environment (Dekker, Hollnagel, Woods & Cook, 2008; Righi, Saurin & Wachs, 2015; Woods, 2015).

CI Resilience: the need for interaction, communication and dialogue

Inspired by the performance of High Reliability Organizations (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007), the resilience engineering doctrine states that the capability of socio-technical systems to sustain safety and prevent catastrophic failure within their dynamic and complex environments requires them to be able to continuously “recognize, absorb and adapt to changes and disruptions” in their operating environment (Dekker et al., 2008, p.3). Due to the current networked structure of CIs, resilience challenges have shifted to the “systemic level” wherefore, in addition to the organizational perspective, a systemic approach to enhancing CI resilience in required (Boin et al., 2003, p.101). The systemic approach to resilience takes into account the interdependencies between CIs and thereby acknowledges that CI resilience cannot solely be enhanced through individual organizations acting as isolated silo’s (Starr, Newfrock & Delurey, 2003). From this perspective, conditions of interaction (Boin et al., 2003, p.103), collaboration and information sharing (Sinclair, 2009, p.62), between CI organizations and their external stakeholders, are regarded as crucial for the building of resilient CI networks. In specific, it is argued that informal communication and coordination mechanisms are superior to comparable formal mechanisms when aimed at enhancing CI resilience; “information passed through networks (of organizations) must be ‘thicker’ than information obtained through markets and ‘freer’ than information communicated through hierarchies” (Powell, in De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007, p.21). When CI operators are able to engage in “rich” informal communication with relevant stakeholders in their network, their knowledge regarding system conditions and creativity regarding problem-solving are enhanced wherefore they are better able to maintain the reliability of CIs (De Bruijne, 2006, p.381).

Furthermore, regarding the interaction between CI organizations and their external stakeholders, several scholars have emphasized the importance of collaboration between the public and private sector for building resilient CIs (Busch & Givens, 2013; Kumaraswamy, Zou & Zhang, 2015; National Research Council, 2011; Pursiainen, 2009). Collaboration between the public and private sector contributes to the alignment of the responsibilities of the public and private sector regarding the management of possible CI breakdowns (Busch & Givens, 2013, p.7); the sharing of information and techniques in relation to risk management; the identification of vulnerabilities; and the establishment of prevention and recovery plans (Pursiainen, 2009, p.734). The government can therefore be regarded as one of the crucial external stakeholders of private CI organizations that should be incorporated into the communication and interaction strategies of CI organizations which are aimed at enhancing CI resilience.

Communication is perceived as an essential aspect of resilience building (Bergstrom, Winsen & Henriqson, 2015, p.137; Jaja & Amah, 2014, p.5; Longstaff & Yang, 2008, p.1) and several resilience scholars have stated the need for interactive mechanisms in order to improve resilience (Dekker et al., 2008, p.49; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007, p.3421). The theoretical relation between CI resilience and inter-organizational communication as an interactive mechanism is certainly evident within the literature (Boin et al., 2003, p.103; De Bruijne, 2006, p.75; Sinclair, 2009, p.70). However, inter-organizational and public/private information sharing require an “environment of trust” (Bouchon & Di Mauro, 2012, p.104) which is undermined by the current networked and “competitive

(5)

5 environment” of private CIs (De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007, p.21). A possible way to circumvent this obstruction to effective information sharing and establish an environment of trust is through the application of dialogue; a communicative instrument that facilitates “valid communication” (Schein, 1993, p.41).

Applying dialogue within the context of CI resilience: the problem

The practice of dialogue between an organization and its external stakeholders is referred to as stakeholder dialogue (Crane & Livesey, 2003, p.14) and is conceptualized as a mechanism that encourages transparency, information-sharing and collaboration (The World Business Council for Sustainable Development [WBCSD], 2002, p.2). The practice of stakeholder dialogue can therefore be regarded as an opportunity to enhance CI resilience. However, while the merits of stakeholder engagement in relation to enhancing CI resilience seem evident within the literature (see Boin et al., 2003; De Bruijne, 2006; Sinclair, 2009), it still remained unclear how CI organizations actually interact with their external stakeholders and, consequently, what methods for dialogue can best be utilized in order to facilitate these interactions. Answers to these questions are important as they can contribute to the development of a practical framework for resilience enhancing communication between CI organizations and their networked environment. From this perspective, this research paper aimed to analyze what methods for dialogue can best be implemented by a CI organization, when interacting with external stakeholders, in order to enhance CI resilience. The central question of this research paper therefore reads as follows:

What methods for dialogue can a CI organization best implement when interacting with external stakeholders in order to enhance CI resilience?

Ultimately, in order to determine what methods for stakeholder dialogue can best be utilized by a CI organization in order to facilitate valid communication and enhance CI resilience, it was first necessary to gain insight into the current external interaction patterns of a CI organization. All dialogue methods are tailored towards the conditions of certain situations wherefore their application is goal and context dependant (McDonald, Bammer & Deane, 2009). It is therefore important that the applied methods for dialogue are compatible with the problems they seek to address and the overarching goal of the interaction. Consequently, before analyzing what dialogue methods can best be utilized by a CI organization when interacting with its networked environment, information needed to be gathered regarding the contexts and goals of these interactions. Therefore, in order to answer the central question of this research paper, the following two sub-questions needed to be answered:

1- How does a CI organization interact with its external stakeholders?

2- What methods for dialogue are compatible with the conditions of the interactions between a CI organization and its external stakeholders?

1.1 Relevance of research question

The current networked environment of CIs in modern liberal societies, which is characterized by interdependency and fragmentation, increases the need for reliable and resilient CIs which consequently requires inter-organizational communication based on mutual trust. However, the “privatization, liberalization and deregulation” of modern CIs has induced a competitive environment (De Bruijne, 2006, p.368) that directly undermines the development of mutual trust and subsequently impedes effective communication between CIs and their networked environment (De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007, p.21). From this perspective, dialogue has been proposed as a promising mechanism to facilitate valid communication between a CI and its external stakeholders. Building forth on this argumentation, this paper attempts to analyze what methods for stakeholder dialogue can best be implemented by a CI organization in order to enhance CI resilience. While the importance of the central research question seems evident within the context CI resilience, the societal and academic relevance of this research will be further elaborated so that it becomes clear how this research practically benefits professionals and society, and

(6)

6 how it actually contributes to the academic fields of Crisis and Security Management (CSM) and Public Administration (PA).

1.1.1 Societal relevance

While it has been acknowledged that the networked environment of modern CIs requires resilience enhancing strategies in order to maintain a reliable provision of vital services within contemporary societies (Boin et al., 2003; Boin & Lagadec, 2000; Boin & McConnel, 2007; De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007; Egan, 2007; Pursiainen, 2009), the literature regarding CI resilience offers little practical insights regarding how resilience can be enhanced within CI networks (Sinclair, 2009, p.72). By analyzing, from both a theoretical and practical perspective, how CI organizations can best communicate and interact with their external stakeholders, this research directly contributes to the establishment of concrete communication and interaction mechanism that can be implemented to enhance CI resilience. While this research is based on the analysis of a single case study, and while resilience is regarded as an emergent system property and thus context specific (Dekker et al., 2008), it is argued that the findings of this research can inform other CI organizations in comparable environments on how to best interact with their external stakeholders in order to enhance CI resilience. This research therefore also contributes to the qualitative research that analyzes how networks of CI organizations can promote system resilience (Sinclair, 2009, p.75).

Since modern societies have become increasingly dependent on the reliable functioning of CIs to continuously supply vital services (Boin et al., 2003, p.99; Boin & McConnell, 2007, p.50), any research that contributes to the enhancement of CI resilience will simultaneously benefit society through the provision of insights, tools and mechanisms that increase CI reliability. In addition to the proliferating dependency of modern societies on reliable CIs, the increased complexity and interconnectedness of these societies (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007, p.3418) has created a situation where CI breakdowns can have detrimental effects on both economic wellbeing (Boin & McConnel, 2007, p.50) and national security (Ridley, 2011, p.111). While the governance of national security has traditionally been a task of the state, the fact that “we inhabit a world of accelerating change and complexity” impedes the ability to govern modern society through single centers of authority (Walters, 2004, p.30). Furthermore, the current fragmented environment of CIs (Sinclair, 2009) and the fact that most CIs are privately owned (De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007, p.22) has complicated the governance of CI networks even further.

As the amount of actors involved in the governing of CIs has become greater and more diverse, the ability of the state to coordinate these private entities has deteriorated as a result of de-regulatory policies. From a governance perspective, these trends have not led to the complete rejection of the state but rather emphasize the increased need for governments to coordinate networks of CIs through mechanisms of self-regulation (Walters, 2004). Therefore, this research is also connected to the domain of PA as it relates to the reliable governance of CI networks within the context of modern liberal society. While the reliable governance of CI networks is not addressed from a governmental perspective, the enhancement of CI resilience in a networked setting, through practices of inter-organizational communication and interaction, does relate to the self-regulation of CI networks. Even though most CIs are privately owned and operated (De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007, p.22), the government still remains legally responsible for ensuring the reliability of these systems (Pursiainen, 2009, p.732). Knowledge regarding how private CI organizations can apply inter-organizational communication mechanisms in order to enhance CI resilience provides insight into how these organizations can self-regulate system resilience. These insights are very relevant for public administrators who are responsible for the supervision and reliability of CIs within their nation.

(7)

7

1.1.2 Academic relevance

As our world is becoming increasingly coupled and complex (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007, p.3418) and CI networks are also becoming larger and more complex (Boin & McConnel, 2007, p.50), it is assumed that the “potential impact” of crises will also increase (Boin & Lagadec, 2000, p.185). As stated before, CI networks are fundamental to the sustained functioning of modern society (Boin & McConnel, 2007, p.50). Since Public Administration (PA) is related to the provision of collective goods and services within society (Denhardt, 2004), this research overlaps with the academic domain of PA because the sustainability and adaptive capabilities of CI networks are essential in order to maintain a stable provision of goods and services within modern society. Furthermore, Labaka et al. (2015) contend that recent wicked problems have emphasized the need for reliable and safe CIs which, consequently, has made “the creation of resilient CIs, that are able to cope with crises, an issue of paramount importance in the field of crisis management” (p.92). Therefore, this research is also connected to the academic domain of Crisis and Security Management (CSM) as it contributes to the literature that aims to minimize the societal impact of CI breakdowns through the building of resilience (Boin & Lagadec, 2000; Boin et al., 2003; Boin & McConnel, 2007; Bouchon & Di Mauro, 2012; De Bruijne, 2006; Egan, 2007; Labaka et al., 2015; Ouyang & Wang, 2015).

Furthermore, within the resilience engineering literature, which is a rather novel emerging paradigm in the domain of crisis management (Labaka et al., 2015, p.93), most research has focused on the description of the core elements of a theory of resilience (Righi et al., 2015, p.149). Less research has been devoted to the prescriptions of resilience and as a result there is a growing need for the development of resilience enhancing measures (Righi et al., 2015, p.149), which is also reflected by the demand for concrete interactive mechanisms that contribute to resilience (Dekker et al., 2008; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007). There seems to be a significant knowledge gap regarding how CI organizations can organize for resilience within their networked setting. While a significant amount of studies have demonstrated that it is not possible to centrally coordinate large networks of organizations, the safety management literature insufficiently takes into account the networked environment of modern organizations wherefore research on “multi-company safety management systems” is meager (Oedewald & Gotcheva, 2015, p.107). This finding is compatible with the results of De Bruijne’s (2006) research on the networked reliability of CIs. According to De Bruijne (2006), the networked environment of modern CIs has placed new demands on the organizations that bear the responsibility for their operations and reliability (p.406). De Bruijne (2006) consequently states that these new demands on the networked reliability of CIs require research to be conducted regarding how CIs can “organize for resilience in a networked environment” (p.406). Finally, while several qualitative and quantitative models of resilience have been developed, and while the fundamental principles of a theory of resilience have been elaborated in detail, there is still a lack of practical guidelines and concrete measures that enable reliability managers to take the necessary steps in order to enhance CI resilience (Labaka et al., 2015, p.93).

Given the significant knowledge gaps described above, this research aims to contribute to the resilience engineering literature by analyzing how CI organizations can organize for resilience within their networked environment through practices of stakeholder dialogue. Therefore this research addresses two important knowledge gaps. First of all, building forth on De Bruijne’s (2006) findings, this research attempts to specifically analyze how CI organizations can organize for resilience within their networked environment. Second, regarding the lack of practical guidelines and concrete measures, this research aims to contribute to the enhancement of CI resilience by providing concrete dialogue methods that are compatible with the conditions of stakeholder interactions and can be implemented by reliability managers as a practical tool to improve CI resilience.

(8)

8

1.2 Readers guide

The remainder of this research paper is structured as follows: Chapter two presents the Theoretical Framework in which the main concepts of this research and their relationships are elaborated on the basis of a literature review. Chapter three presents the Methodology applied within the context of this research. This chapter describes the design of this research, the utilized empirical approach, the manner in which the concepts have been made measurable and the limitations of this research. Chapter four presents the results and analysis of the case study. Chapter five presents the conclusion of this research in which the research question is answered and the theoretical and practical implications of this study are described. Chapter six provides an overview of the appendixes used in this research. Finally, chapter seven presents the references used within the context of this research.

(9)

9

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Critical Infrastructures

CIs are “large-scale socio-technical systems” (Sinclair, 2009, p.64) that provide vital services to society (De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007, p.18). While CI systems have initially been developed through the use of “hard technologies” such as “ducts, pipes and wires”, their inclusion of software, people and machines has transformed current CIs into complex socio-technical systems (Egan, 2007, p.5). The term CI has been used frequently in the domains of government, management and academics, however, it has often “been defined by illustration and categorization rather than by a set of characteristics” that can be theoretically and empirically analyzed (Egan, 2007, p.5). The Dutch government for example, identifies thirty-three different products and services that are regarded as being vital (Rijksoverheid, 2010). These thirty-three vital products and services are classified according to the respective CI sector to which they belong: energy, telecommunications/ICT, water, food, healthcare, finance, management of surface waters, public order and safety, legal order, public administration, transportation or chemical and nuclear industry (Rijskoverheid, 2010, p.5-6). This exhaustive classification of CI sectors by the Dutch government provides insight into the broad range of products and services that are defined as being vital or critical to modern day society. Naturally, when there are more products and services that are regarded as being vital to the sustained functioning of society, the probability that society will be confronted with disruptions in the provision of these products and services will also increase. The significant amount of products and services that are classified as being vital therefore evidently portray societies increased vulnerability (Boin & McConnel, 2007, p.50).

While CIs have often been defined through broad categorizations rather than specific characteristics, the Dutch government does issue a definition of CIs that provides insight into the general characteristics of these large socio-technical systems. According to the Dutch government, CIs are those products, services and processes that, if they fail, can cause societal or economic disruptions at the (inter)national level, through the generation of many victims and/or because recovery processes require significant time and there are no realistic alternatives at hand while we cannot miss these products and services (Rijksoverheid, 2010, p.4). When analyzing this definition of CIs, it becomes apparent that CIs constitute those products and services that modern societies cannot function without. This conceptualization of CIs is compatible with Demchak’s definition of CIs, who “suggests that infrastructure elements are critical if they: a) provide routine functions along operational paths essential for average or routine system functions; b) no handy, rapid substitutes exist; c) sudden dysfunction in and around these elements cause nontrivial harm, and; d) they are embedded in wide, functionally reciprocal, integrated systems” (in Egan, 2007, p.5). This definition reflects the four core elements of modern CIs, namely their vitality to society, irreplaceability, interconnectedness and ability to cause significant harm.

Due to modern societies’ profound dependency on the continued provision of vital services by CIs (Boin & McConnell, 2007, p.50), contemporary CIs are regarded as the “backbone” of cities and communities (Ouyang & Wang, 2015, p.74). Within modern societies, CIs contribute to: 1) the provision of vital services; 2) the support and development of economic systems; 3) the support of socio-political functions, and; 4) the connection of urban areas with the rest of the region, country or other countries (Bouchon & Di Mauro, 2012, p.105-106). Clearly, when these vital functions are disrupted as a result of CI breakdowns, the societal consequences can be great. In order to portray the potential devastating effects of a CI breakdown on the functioning of society, Bouchon and Di Mauro (2012) have presented the cascading effects, based on a time interval, of an electric power supply failure (p.107) (see figure one below).

(10)

10 Figure one: Cascading effects, in time, after electric power supply failure (Bouchon & Di Mauro, 2012, p.107). When analyzing the impacts of an electric power supply failure presented in figure one above, it becomes evident that single CI failures can have a quick cascading effect throughout the whole network of interrelated and interdependent CIs. The potential “domino-like effect” (Sinclair, 2009, p.55) of CI breakdowns is indicative of the “interconnected and mutually interdependent” character of modern CIs (Ouyang & Wang, 2015, p.74). The increased interdependency between modern CIs enables enhanced efficiency in the production and provision of vital goods and services, but simultaneously augments system vulnerability due to the fact that failures in one CI system can lead to “cascading failures” in other CI systems (Ouyang & Wang, 2015, p.74). Consequently, CIs have become more vulnerable to operational accidents, intentional disturbances and terrorist attacks (Ridley, 2011, p.114). In addition to the increased interconnectedness, interdependency and, subsequently, vulnerability of modern CIs, these complex socio-technical systems have become increasingly difficult to govern as a result of “privatization, liberalization and deregulation” processes (De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007, p.19). According to the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations1_{(2005), an estimated 70-80% of all CIs in the Netherlands is} owned by private organizations (p.78). As a consequence of liberal market thinking, modern CIs have become institutionally fragmented (Jennings & Lodge, 2010, p.165) wherefore it is no longer possible to govern these complex systems through single, vertical centers of authority. From this perspective, the development of reliable CIs is no longer the sole responsibility of the government nor the sole responsibility of single CI organizations, but rather has become an “inter-organizational challenge” (De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007, p.19).

In addition to the potential for CI breakdowns to cause significant harm to society, these complex socio-technical systems are constantly confronted with external threats (Egan, 2007, p.7). Regarding the external threats to CIs, the Dutch government, utilizing an “all-hazard” approach, has identified five threats that are applicable to most CIs

(11)

11 in the Netherlands: flooding, flu pandemic, electricity failure, ICT failure and intentional disturbances (security) (Rijksoverheid, 2010, p.6). Adding to these general threats, the Dutch government states that each CI sector is also confronted with its own unique threats resulting from the specific characteristics of a certain product, service or process (Rijksoverheid, 2010, p.7). In relation to the energy sector for example, the Dutch government argues that a significant threat constitutes the dependency on foreign energy sources, such as coals, oil, gas and LNG (Rijksoverheid, 2010, p.7). Therefore, acknowledging the current external threats to CIs (Rijksoverheid, 2010, p.6), the increased interconnectedness, interdependency and institutional fragmentation of CI systems (Sinclair, 2009), and the proliferating dependency of modern societies on these systems (Boin & McConnell, 2007, p.50), it is safe to say that there is an increased need for reliable CIs (De Bruijne, 2006, p.10). Building forth on this notion of reliability, resilience has been proposed as a promising solution to cope with the increased complexity of CI systems (Boin et al., 2003; Boin & Lagadec, 2000; Boin & McConnel, 2007; De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007; Egan, 2007; Pursiainen, 2009; Sinclair, 2009).

2.2 Resilience

According to the academic literature, modern society has become increasingly complex due to the vast amount of technological developments (Dekker et al., 2008, p.8; Furedi, 2008, p.651). In addition, the transnationalisation of markets and CIs has also caused modern society to become more interconnected (Pursiainen, 2009, p.721), wherefore disturbances can have a cascading effect throughout society (Sinclair, 2009, p.55). It is argued that the proliferating complexity and interconnectedness of contemporary society has made society more susceptible to surprise (Aradau, 2014) and uncertainty (Furedi, 2008). Naturally, as society becomes more complex and interconnected, it becomes more difficult to foresee the occurrence of certain disruptions and their potential effects on society. Hence, these trends have induced a societal environment where possibilities for “effective anticipation” have decreased (De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007, p.22) and the isolation of disruptions has become near impossible (Boin et al., 2003, p.99). As a consequence, society has become more vulnerable to disturbances (Furedi, 2008, p.651) such as CI breakdowns, natural disasters and economic crises. From this perspective, the concept of resilience, with its focus on adaptability and flexibility, has been put forward by academics as a promising solution to cope with the increasing uncertainty and vulnerability of contemporary society (Furedi, 2008).

The resilience framework regards a novel view on the management of safety within complex socio-technical systems (Righi et al., 2015, p.142) such as CIs (Boin & McConnel, 2007, p.50). Resilience has been conceptualized as the ability of a system or organization to continuously adapt to changes and disturbances “without breaking down” (Dekker et al., 2008, p.3). Vogus and Sutcliffe (2007) for example, define resilience “as the maintenance of positive adjustment under challenging conditions such that the organization emerges from those conditions strengthened and more resourceful” (p.3418). In contrast to the old safety management paradigms, like the Swiss Cheese model (Reason, 1990), that emphasize the linearity of accidents and the unreliability of the human component in intrinsically safe systems, the resilience paradigm acknowledges the complexity of accidents and perceives the adaptive ability of the human component as the main driver that holds intrinsically unsafe systems together in the face of continuous change, pressure and uncertainty (Dekker et al., 2008). Therefore, resilience “is not about reducing negatives (incidents, errors, violations)”, rather, it is “about identifying and then enhancing the positive capabilities of people and organizations” that enable them to accommodate change in critical situations (Dekker et al., 2008, p.3). In order to sustain performance and safety in the complex environment of contemporary society and systems, the resilience doctrine emphasizes the ability of socio-technical systems to continually accommodate and adapt to changes and disruptions in the operating environment through practices of monitoring risks and vulnerabilities, challenging underlying assumptions and learning collectively from mistakes and events (Dekker et al., 2008; Lundberg & Johansson, 2015; Madni & Jackson, 2009; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007).

(12)

12 As stated before, most research on resilience has focused on describing the core elements of the concept wherefore the prescriptions of resilience, and related resilience enhancing measures, have received considerably less attention (Righi et al., 2015, p.149). Therefore, it still remains unclear how organizations can exactly develop resilient capabilities in order to manage complexity and uncertainty in day-to-day operations. In an attempt to facilitate the development of resilient organizations, McManus, Seville, Vargo and Brunsdon (2008) have translated the notion of resilience into “tangible working constructs” that can be applied by organizations (p.81). According to McManus et al. (2008), “resilience is a function of an organization’s overall situation awareness, management of keystone vulnerabilities, and adaptive capacity in a complex, dynamic and interconnected environment” (p.82).

Situational awareness relates to the extent to which an organization is aware of, and understands, its complete operating environment (McManus et al., 2008, p.83). Specifically, this means that an organization is able to identify possible future opportunities and crises that can have a profound effect on the functioning of that organization (McManus et al., 2008, p.83). Within this context, an organization should be aware of the “trigger factors for crises”, the “resources available both internally and externally”, the “minimum operating requirements”, and the “expectations, obligations, and limitations” of relevant stakeholders (McManus et al., 2008, p.83). Furthermore, McManus et al. (2008) contend that an organization should not only be aware, but also manage, its keystone vulnerabilities. According to McManus et al. (2008), keystone vulnerabilities are those elements in an organizational system on which other elements of that system are dependent on; their breakdown can induce significant negative effects throughout the whole organizational system (p.83). In relation to the identification of keystone vulnerabilities, an organization should be aware of both the rate at which the breakdown of a certain element has a negative effect; “rapid or insidious”, and the number of breakdowns needed to induce a significant negative effect on that organization; “discrete or cascading” (McManus et al., 2008, p.83). While it is helpful when an organization is aware of its operating environment and keystone vulnerabilities, an organization also has to be able to adapt to changes if it wishes to withstand disruptions. According to McManus et al. (2008), the adaptive capacity of an organization relates to the extent to which the “culture and dynamics” of that organization enable it “to make decisions in a timely and appropriate manner”, during both daily operations and crisis situations (p.83). By improving their performance in relation to these three core functions, organizations can enhance their overall resilient capabilities (McManus et al., 2008).

Finally, while many scholars have described the need for resilient critical infrastructures (Boin et al., 2003; Boin & Lagadec, 2000; Boin & McConnel, 2007; De Bruijne & Van Eeten, 2007; Egan, 2007; Pursiainen, 2009; Sinclair, 2009), there is no general accepted definition of critical infrastructure resilience. However, The Infrastructure Security Partnership (TISP) does provide a definition of the disaster resiliency of CIs: “the capability to prevent or protect against significant multi-hazard threats and incidents, including terrorist attacks, and to expeditiously recover and reconstitute critical services with minimum damage to public safety and health, the economy, and national security” (TISP, in Bouchon & Di Mauro, 2012, p.104).

2.3 Dialogue

While dialogue has been conceptualized in this research paper as an opportunity to enhance CI resilience, it still remains unclear what the practice of dialogue actually entails. The term dialogue originates from the Greek word “dialogos”, whereby “dia” means “through” and “logos” refers to “the word or the meaning of the word” (Bohm, in Franco, 2006, p.814). But what makes dialogue so much different from other forms of conversation such as a debate, negotiation or persuasion? According to Franco (2006), dialogue aims “to jointly create meaning and shared understanding between participants” through means of communication (p.814). In essence, the practice of dialogue is not aimed at validating a specific viewpoint or winning a particular argumentation. The practice of dialogue is rather based on a notion of “mutual understanding” whereby participating actors carefully listen to one

(13)

13 and other and try to discover the “strength and value” in each other’s viewpoint (Yankelovich, in Franco, 2006, p.814). The degree of suspension within a dialogue, which refers to the extent to which emergent issues are confronted directly or suspended and left open, is therefore of great importance (Isaacs, 1993, p.33; Schein, 1993, p.46). Since dialogue is geared towards the establishment of mutual understanding, “judgments or pre-conceptions” should ideally be suspended in order to facilitate equal participation by all participants and the “mutual probing” of underlying assumptions (Roberts, in Franco, 2006, p.814).

Dialogue can also lead to the resolution of conflict between two or more participants. It is generally acknowledged within the academic literature that the practice of dialogue facilitates the relationship between the participating actors to evolve from conflict, competition and confrontation towards cooperation and collaboration (Crane & Livesey, 2003, p.14; Kaptein & Van Tulder, 2003, p.209; Van Tulder, Kaptein, Van Mil & Schilpzand, 2004, p.32). In practice this generally means that the mode of interaction between the participants shifts from a debate to a dialogue (Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.32). In order to provide insight into the core elements of a dialogue and limit conceptual ambiguity, it is necessary to clearly distinguish the difference between a debate and a dialogue. In essence, a dialogue requires a completely different mental mode and different competencies from the participants than a debate (Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.32). The most important fundamental differences between debate and dialogue are briefly summarized in figure two below.

As presented implicitly in figure two below, the practice of dialogue seeks to enhance mutual learning between participating actors, improve their relationship and, consequently, foster an environment where activities can be executed jointly by all partners involved (Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.32). However, mutual learning and relationship building cannot be established through single interactions between relevant actors. The practice of dialogue is therefore characterized by a process orientation rather than an issue orientation; it is a continuous process without a clear beginning or ending (Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.32). Central within the process of dialogue is the exploration of possible connections between participating partners in order to arrive at or establish a certain “common ground” (Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.33). The creation of a common ground between the participants of a dialogue can be realized by connecting and integrating the “facts, judgments, visions, values, interests, epistemologies, time scales, geographical scales or world views” of the individual participants (McDonald et al., 2009, p.5). Compatible with the fundamental elements of dialogue presented in figure two below, the establishment of a common ground through the application of dialogue allows the participating actors to evaluate one and other’s differences from a common point of view. This common ground can subsequently serve as a basis to facilitate mutual understanding, information-sharing, learning, collective action and decision making. Dialogue, as a practice in general, can be utilized by any two or more actors who engage in a conversation. However, when dialogue functions as a mechanism to facilitate communication between a CI organization and its external stakeholders, it is better to speak of stakeholder dialogue.

(14)

14 Figure two: Main fundamental differences between a debate and a dialogue (Kaptein & Van Tulder, 2003, p.210).

2.3.1 Stakeholder dialogue

Stakeholder dialogue is defined as a “process in which parties with different interests and values at stake in a particular issue work together towards mutually acceptable solutions” (Perret, 2003, p.385). The term stakeholder is quite broad and can refer to a diverse range of actors in the internal and external environment of an organization. Freeman, for example, defines stakeholders as “groups and individuals who can affect or are affected by, the achievement of an organization’s mission” (in O’Riordan & Fairbrass, 2008, p.747). Since we are living in an increasingly coupled and complex world (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007, p.3418), the amount of groups and individuals that can affect or be affected by the operations of a CI organization are substantial. The influence of CI organizations on their external environment is also reinforced since modern society has become increasingly dependent on the reliable functioning of CI networks (Boin et al., 2003, p.99; Boin & McConnell, 2007, p.50). In addition, there is also a proliferating number of actors that can influence the operations of CI organizations due to the fact that CIs have become increasingly interdependent (Pursiainen, 2009, p.721). Therefore, within the context of this research, the definition of stakeholders provided by Freeman (in O’Riordan & Fairbrass, 2008, p.747) is problematic since its application on a CI organization will lead to the identification of a vast array of stakeholders that cannot all be included within the scope of this research. Additionally, since genuine dialogue is inefficient and requires a lot of time (Crane & Livesey, 2003, p.22), it would also be impossible for a CI organization to engage in genuine dialogues with all the actors that affect or can be affected by its operations. Therefore, in order to

Debate Dialogue

1. Competition with a single

winner or only losers (either-or thinking)

Cooperation where everyone is a winner (and-and thinking)

2. Egocentric where the other

party is a threat or a means to personal profit

Empathetic where the other party is an opportunity and represents an intrinsic interest

3. Putting yourself in a better light Being yourself

4. Speaking, to which others have

to listen

Listening to others before speaking yourself

5. Influencing Convincing

6. Confronting, combative and

destructive, whereby the weaknesses and wrongs of the other party are sought out and the similarities are negated

Constructive and, from a point of mutual understanding and respect, looking for similarities from which to consider the differences

7. A closed and defensive attitude

because you personally know the truth

A vulnerable attitude because there are many truths and where parties are open to criticism about their own performance and they can use

8. Taking and keeping Giving and receiving

9. Divide and rule Share and serve

10. Separate/isolated

(15)

15 facilitate analysis, this research provides an alternative and more specific definition of stakeholders that is compatible with the scope of this research:

Within the context of this research the term stakeholders refers to those actors, in the external environment of a CI organization, that have the potential to influence the reliability of day-to-day operations and with whom interaction has been established.

This definition of stakeholders is more specific in the sense that it only includes those actors in the external environment and with whom a form of interaction has already been established. The latter specification is important since the scope of this research does not include any new stakeholders in the external environment of a CI organization that could potentially influence its reliability, but with whom no previous form of interaction has occurred. Furthermore, the reference to the reliability of day-to-day operations is made in order to exclude those stakeholders, in the external environment of a CI organization, with whom interaction has been established in order to attain purely commercial goals, such as market expansion, the development of sustainable energy or the enhancement of brand awareness. While the commercial relationships with these stakeholders are definitely important for the long-term economic sustainability and reliability of a CI organization in the competitive market, the interactions with these actors are often not based on the topics and subjects that directly contribute to the enhancement of CI resilience.

2.3.2 Engaging in genuine stakeholder dialogue

The practice of stakeholder engagement can have many functions; organizations may interact with external stakeholders in order to gather information, provide information, gain acceptance for specific organizational decisions or collectively identify and solve complex issues (Harris, in Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.31). However, it has to be acknowledged that not every form of stakeholder interaction constitutes real dialogue (Crane & Livesey, 2003; Harris, in Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.31). The term dialogue has been increasingly used by many academics and practitioners. Consequently, the expanded application of the term dialogue has lead to the reinforcement of its conceptual ambiguity (Burchell & Cook, 2006, p.212). Organizations and managers often, wrongly, label communicative practices such as information gathering and consultation as dialogue (Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.30). While the term dialogue sounds fancier than information gathering or consultancy, these latter forms of interaction are fundamentally different from practices of real dialogue. According to Van Tulder et al. (2004), the conceptual ambiguity surrounding the term dialogue is augmented by five factors: 1) the unfamiliarity with the concept; 2) the underestimation of complex issues by managers wherefore they believe that less intensive forms of interaction will suffice; 3) the possibility to portray certain interactions in a more attractive manner; 4) the fact that some stakeholders express the need for dialogue while organizations might find another approach adequate, and; 5) several different forms of interaction can take place simultaneously or sequentially (p.30). In order to minimize the conceptual ambiguity surrounding the term dialogue, this paper has already contrasted dialogue with another form of conversation, the debate (see figure two above). However, since this research paper focuses specifically on stakeholder dialogue, it is necessary to distinguish this form of stakeholder interaction from other forms of stakeholder interaction.

In his article “Organizations, Environments, and Models of Public Relations”, Grunig (1984) presents four models of public relations behavior and thereby lays the foundation for the categorization of different forms of stakeholder interaction. Adopting a public relations perspective, Grunig and Hunt identify four models of public relations behavior: 1) a one-way asymmetric model; 2) a one-way symmetric model; 3) a two-way asymmetric model, and; 4) a two-way symmetric model (in Grunig, 1984, p.8). In their model, Grunig and Hunt distinguish between one-way and two-one-way forms of communication and between the intent of communication; asymmetric and aimed at manipulation or symmetric and aimed at mutual understanding (Grunig, 1984, p.9). While the asymmetric models

(16)

16 are geared towards persuasion and dominance, the symmetric models relate to “the communication and interpretation of information, ideas and opinion… from public to the institution in an effort to bring the two into harmonious adjustment” (Cutlip & Center, in Grunig, 1984, p.10). In the symmetric models, the interests of both parties are represented which, consequently, supports the “organization to maintain its interdependence with its environment” (Grunig, 1984, p.10). While these four models were initially developed in relation to the domain of public relations and therefore regard the communication between an organization and the public (Grunig, 1984), these models can also be utilized to analyze different stakeholder interactions.

Building forth on the four models of public relations presented by Grunig (1984), Crane and Livesey (2003) distinguish two forms of stakeholder dialogue; two-way asymmetrical dialogues for instrumental purposes and two-way symmetric genuine dialogues (p.15). According to Crane and Livesey (2003), two-way asymmetrical dialogues entail “communicating to rather than with stakeholders” wherefore they can also be conceptualized as “monologic dialogues” that are aimed at “communicating self-interest and aligning the other’s interest to one’s own” (p.15). However, the application of dialogue for rhetorical or instrumental purposes can be problematic since it can undermine the relationships between an organization and its stakeholders. When an organization engages in asymmetrical dialogues with its stakeholders for purely instrumental purposes, it can be conceived as an “attempt at manipulation, co-optation, or control” which, consequently, damages the credibility of the organization in question (Crane & Livesey, 2003, p.16).

In contrast to asymmetrical dialogues, Crane and Livesey (2003) contend that the practice of “genuine two-way symmetric” dialogue is aimed at collective problem solving, mutual learning and relationship management (p.15). When engaging in a genuine stakeholder dialogue the purpose of communication is not merely to gain compliance or control, but rather to manage “stakeholder interdependence and problem-solving” (Crane & Livesey, 2003, p.17). Furthermore, Cheney and Christensen conclude that structural genuine dialogues, between an organization and its stakeholders, encompass the best solution for the management of modern day complexities in Western democratic societies (in Crane & Livesey, 2003, p.13-14). Therefore, if stakeholder dialogue is to be utilized to facilitate effective communication, mutual problem-solving and relationship building between a CI organization and its stakeholders, it should ideally be genuine. However, Crane and Livesey (2003) do state that their classification of stakeholder dialogue is not absolute and that both forms of dialogue would rather “represent points on a continuum” than a permanent distinction (p.15). From this point of view, when two parties initially communicate with each other through asymmetrical forms of dialogue but wish to intensify their communication and relationship for whatever reason, they can always engage in symmetrical and genuine forms of dialogue. However, a genuine dialogue does require that both parties are open to the “transformative effects of their communication” (Crane & Livesey, 2003, p.17), wherefore it subsequently demands a different attitude than asymmetrical dialogues.

According to Van Tulder et al. (2004), the practice of stakeholder dialogue should be based on the same fundamental principles as conventional dialogues which are presented in figure two above (p.34). Building forth on the notion of genuine dialogue, Van Tulder et al. (2004) contend that stakeholder dialogue encompasses two dimensions that are mutually inclusive (p.34). On the one hand, stakeholder dialogue relates to a means of communication that requires a specific set of skills, techniques and rules (Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.34). On the other hand, stakeholder dialogue encompasses a process between two or more actors whereby the participants attempt to engage in a long-term relationship on the basis of mutual trust (Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.34). Both dimensions are mutually inclusive: without dialogue as a means of communication it is impossible to build a long-term relationship based on trust, and without a relationship based on trust it is impossible to engage in effective dialogue. This conception of stakeholder dialogue emphasizes the importance of trust as a fundamental prerequisite for engaging in effective dialogue. Therefore, according to this conception of stakeholder dialogue, effective dialogue is not possible in the absence of trust. Furthermore, when reflecting back on the classification of

(17)

17 dialogue presented by Crane and Livesey (2003), it becomes evident that the second dimension of stakeholder dialogue described by Van Tulder et al. (2004) is compatible with the genuine form of dialogue described by Crane and Livesey (2003). In both cases, stakeholder dialogue is conceptualized as a means to manage stakeholder relationships on the basis of trust. While both authors acknowledge the fact that some forms of stakeholder interaction merely relate to instrumental processes of information exchange, they also acknowledge that stakeholder dialogue, when applied genuinely, can have an empathetic function that supports the building of relationships between an organization and its stakeholders (Crane & Livesey, 2003; Van Tulder et al., 2004). According to O’Riordan and Fairbrass (2008), the relationships between an organization and its external stakeholders can be complicated by issues such as “diverging and often conflicting expectations”, “contextual complexities” and differing interpretations of particular issues and problems (p.747). Since practices of stakeholder dialogue can provide insight into the interests, underlying assumptions, visions and values of the participating parties (McDonald et al., 2009), it can be utilized as an interactive mechanism to overcome and resolve the relational complexities described by O’Riordan and Fairbrass (2008). However, in order to integrate interests and overcome the potential difficulties in the relationships between a CI organization and its external stakeholders, it is necessary that stakeholder dialogue is applied genuinely: “a dialogue in which questions of interest and representation are constantly negotiated” (Cheney & Christensen, in Crane & Livesey, 2003, p.16). A dialogue in which the interests of one party prevail over the interests of the other party will not resolve the relational complexities described above because the imbalance in the represented interests inhibits the development of “mutually acceptable solutions” (Perret, 2003, p.385). Furthermore, a dialogue in which interests are represented disproportionately does not enable the participating parties to develop an understanding of each other’s needs and interests, which, according to Perret (2003), “can form the basis of taking the dialogue further” (p.386). Considering the necessity for stakeholder dialogue to be genuine in order to build trust, manage stakeholder relationships and facilitate communication, the following section presents a classification of stakeholder interactions that provides an indication of whether or not a certain interaction can be regarded as genuine dialogue.

2.3.3 A classification of stakeholder interactions

Regarding the classification of stakeholder interactions, Harris (in Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.31) and Perret (2003) both differentiate five forms of stakeholder engagement on the basis of the goal or overarching aim of the interaction. The five basic forms of stakeholder interaction distinguished by Harris (in Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.31) and Perret (2003, p.386) are: information-giving, information gathering, consultation, bounded dialogue and open dialogue (see appendix A). Regarding this classification, Harris contends that, while definitely applicable in the context of stakeholder engagement, the first three forms of stakeholder interaction do not constitute dialogues (in Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.31). The goals of these three forms of interaction relate to the gathering of information, the provision of information or the gaining of acceptance for specific organizational decisions (Harris, in Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.31). When reflecting on the goals of these three forms of interaction it can indeed be argued that they do not entail dialogue.

In contrast to real dialogue, which has been conceptualized as a two-way communicative process (Crane & Livesey, 2003), these three forms of interaction are better compatible with monologic communication processes “in which the initiator is mostly concerned with the opinions of others, the display of power, self-interested influence, and the shaping of a desirable image” (Golob & Podnar, 2014, p.249). Naturally, when merely providing or gathering information an organization does not engage in two-way but rather one-way communicative processes. In addition to the fact that one-way communicative processes do not constitute real dialogues, Crane and Livesey (2003) argue that one-way communicative processes, even when genuine, are still geared towards persuasion (p.9). Hence, it is argued that practices of information providing and gathering are better compatible with monologic forms of communication that are designed to influence an audience (Golob & Podnar, 2014).

(18)

18 While it is evident that the provision or gathering of information by an organization does not constitute real dialogue, this is less clear in the case of consultation. Consultation entails the gaining of feedback on a prepared proposal (Harris, in Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.31) and therefore does exhibit an interactive dimension whereby communication flows two-ways. According to Johanessen (1971), it is possible to disguise monologic communication as dialogue, however, the main motive remains self-interest (p.377). With regard to consultation it is possible to apply the same argumentation. While consultation can be disguised as a two-way communicative process compatible with dialogue, it still revolves around the gaining of acceptance (Harris, in Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.31) whereby the stakeholder is merely “the means to the end”: providing feedback that is only interesting for the initiating organization when it supports its goals and “achieves apparent consensus” (Golob & Podnar, 2014, p.249). Furthermore, while the communication flows two-ways in processes of consultation, the communication often revolves around single issue items and therefore stops once the stakeholder has provided feedback on the prepared proposal. However, Gao and Zhang contend that dialogue should be a two-way communicative process whereby stakeholders are not just “consulted or listened to, but also responded to” (in Crane & Livesey, 2003, p.14). Therefore, it is argued that practices of stakeholder consultation are also better compatible with the monologic form rather than the dialogic form of communication. Acknowledging the fact that the term monologue does not necessarily imply a one-way form of communication but rather relates to its inherent goal to “command, coerce, manipulate, conquer, dazzle, deceive, or exploit” (Johanessen, 1971, p.377), it is argued here that the monologue processes of information-giving, information gathering and consultation are compatible with the asymmetrical or instrumental form of dialogue, which is also conceptualized by Crane and Livesey (2003) as a “monologic dialogue” (p.15).

Furthermore, Harris (in Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.31) and Perret (2003, p.386) differentiate between bounded dialogue and open dialogue. The former relates to dialogue processes that are aimed at gaining support and enabling collaboration on the implementation of already decided policy, and the latter relates to dialogue processes that are aimed at complex problem solving through means of extensive collaboration and cooperation (in Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.31). The most important difference between bounded and open dialogue relates to the ownership of the decisions and subject matter. Within the context of the bounded dialogue, the basic decisions regarding the approach to a certain issue have already been made by the initiator of the dialogue (Harris, in Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.31; Perret, 2003, p.386). Furthermore, in addition to having already made the basic decisions, the initiator of the bounded dialogue also sets out the parameters of the dialogue and thereby owns the problem and solution (Harris, in Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.31; Perret, 2003, p.386). While the bounded dialogue does aim to enable collaboration on the implementation of already made policies, action plans and strategies, the main goal of this form of interaction still revolves around the gaining of support for already made decisions and the obtaining of a “license to operate, sell, grow or develop” (Harris, in Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.31). From this perspective, Harris points out that a significant threat of the bounded dialogue relates to the possibility that stakeholders think that they are being sidetracked since their most important role relates to the approval of policies, rather than obstructing them (in Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.31). In addition, since the initiator of the bounded dialogue is also the likely owner of the problem and solution, Perret (2003) contends that, within the context of bounded dialogue, there can be problems regarding the “ownership of any results” (p.386). Therefore, if two parties wish to engage in a long-term relationship, the bounded form of dialogue may not best facilitate this goal since it is not geared towards mutual problem solving and therefore does not evenly distribute the merits of the dialogue amongst its participants.

Since the bounded dialogue is aimed at gaining support and its subject matter is determined by the initiator of the dialogue (Harris, in Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.31), it is argued that this form of dialogue does not exhibit the elements of “interdependence” (Crane & Livesey, 2003, p.17), “joint problem solving” (p.15) and “mutual trust” (Van Tulder et al., 2004, p.34) which form the core of a genuine dialogue. Clearly, when the most important decisions have already been made and when the initiator of the dialogue is also the owner of the problems and solutions, there is no room to continuously negotiate “questions of interest and representation”, a process that

Enhancing Critical Infrastructure Resilience Through Stakeholder Dialogue

Enhancing Critical Infrastructure Resilience Through Stakeholder Dialogue

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Relevance of research question

1.1.1 Societal relevance

1.1.2 Academic relevance

1.2 Readers guide

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Critical Infrastructures

2.2 Resilience

2.3 Dialogue

2.3.1 Stakeholder dialogue

2.3.2 Engaging in genuine stakeholder dialogue

2.3.3 A classification of stakeholder interactions