27 visualizações

Enviado por michael17ph2003

- IT Contingency Plan
- 2SA970
- Risk Based Inspection Planning for Structural Systems
- Paper g e m
- Ch.6
- Plant-Wellness-Edn1-PDF-Book.pdf
- File-1377138300
- Plant-Wellness-Edn1-PDF-Book.pdf
- Cost Risk Op
- 1
- PC3SH_datasheet
- 123-optimizaiton
- 2SA1312_datasheet_en_20140301
- Maintenance and Repairs Schedualing Algoritms
- MGMT 530 Course Project Managerial Decision Making Proposal Week 6 and Week 7
- tmsa2.pdf
- Evaluation of Data Submitted in APPA’s 2011 Distribution System Reliability & Operations Survey
- D4-04 HyApproval WP4 D4-4 Reliability Data Id and Review V1-0 DNV
- Upload 31.doc
- 10% PM Rule

Você está na página 1de 10

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

O.R. Applications

recovery planning

Kweku-Muata (Noel) Bryson a,*, Harvey Millar b, Anito Joseph c,

Ayodele Mobolurin d

a

Department of Information Systems, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284, USA

b

Department of Management Science, St. Marys University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 3C3, USA

c

Department of Management Science, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA

d

Department of Information Systems and Analysis, Howard University, Washington, DC 20059, USA

Received 19 April 2000; accepted 15 July 2001

Abstract

All organizations are susceptible to a non-zero risk of experiencing out-of-course events, whether natural or man-

made, that can lead to internal disasters with respect to business operations. Dierent types of events (e.g. ood,

earthquake, re, theft, computer failure) have implications for the operations of modern organizations. Hence, there is

a critical need for planning and recovery strategies for the eects of disasters. Disaster recovery plans (DRPs) aim at

ensuring that organizations can function eectively during and following the occurrence of a disaster. As such, they

possess cost, performance, reliability, and complexity characteristics that make their development and selection non-

trivial. To date, there has been little modeling of disaster recovery issues in the MS/OR literature. We believe that many

of the issues involved can benet from the application of quantitative decision-making techniques. Consequently, in this

paper our contribution is prescriptive rather than descriptive in nature and we propose the use of mathematical

modeling as a decision support tool for successful development of a DRP. In arriving at a nal DRP, decision-makers

must consider a number of options or subplans and select a subset of these subplans for inclusion in the nal plan. We

present a mathematical programming model which helps the decision maker to select among competing subplans, a

subset of subplans which maximizes the value of the recovery capability of a recovery strategy. We use hypothetical

situations to illustrate how this technique can be used to support the planning process. 2002 Elsevier Science B.V.

All rights reserved.

Keywords: Disaster recovery strategy; Disaster recovery planning; Subplan selection; Heuristics

1. Introduction

* covery strategy (DRS) is a system for internal

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-804-225-3632; fax: +1-804-

828-3199. control and security that focuses on quick resto-

E-mail addresses: kweku-muata@isy.vcu.edu, kweku-mu- ration of service for critical organizational pro-

ata@worldnet.att.net (K.-M. Bryson). cesses when there are operational failures due to

0377-2217/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 3 7 7 - 2 2 1 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 2 7 5 - 2

680 K.-M. Bryson et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 141 (2002) 679688

natural or man-made disasters. A DRP aims to out the re, and there must be a clear plan for

minimize potential loss by identifying, prioritizing recovery that requires various resources including

and safeguarding those organizational assets that personnel, hardware and infrastructure.

are most valuable and that need the most protec- The dearth of models in the MS/OR literature

tion. In recent years various factors including shows quite clearly that the benet of MS/OR

government regulations in certain industries (e.g. methodology has not yet been brought to bear on

banking, credit unions), the occurrence of natural this emerging discipline. Although recently Jenkins

disasters (e.g. hurricane Andrew of 1993), and the (2000) has explored the use of integer programming

occurrence of social disasters (e.g. L.A. riots of techniques for selecting disaster scenarios, it would

1992) have led to increasing interest in the devel- appear that the largest body of relevant quantita-

opment, testing and maintenance of DRPs. This tive analysis exists primarily in the area of risk as-

has resulted in intense customer and vendor in- sessment (Levitt, 1997; Tamura et al., 2000), or has

terest in the development of tools for disaster re- been reactive in focus, being restricted only to the

covery (e.g. Sclafane, 1996; Violino, 1996; Tevis, operational post-disaster phase such as the de-

1996; Carson, 1997). For example in just the NT ployment of crews (Pidd et al., 1996; Sarker et al.,

(operating system) recovery area, it is estimated 1996). Our research, we believe, will be a welcomed

that customers spent $ 102 million in 1996, with addition to the contribution of MS/OR to disaster

the projected amount being $ 324 million for the recovery research. Recognizing that little modeling

year 2000 (Torode, 1997). of disaster recovery issues has taken place to date

Although the eld of DRP has attracted the in the MS/OR literature, our model represents a

interests of information technology practitioners forward step in providing what is a fast growing

and vendors for a number of years, very little discipline with rigorous models for supporting de-

formal management science type research (e.g. cision making. Consequently, our contribution is

Sarker et al., 1996) has been done in this area. prescriptive rather than descriptive in nature. We

Thus, while there is a large volume of publications introduce the application of MS/OR to DRP at the

on DRP in numerous and various practitioner- pre-disaster planning/development phase. MS/OR

oriented journals (e.g. Banking Technology, Net- has potential for contributing to the strategic levels

work World, Communications News), the subject of decision-making in DRP to ensure that plans

has received scant attention in the management operate as expected/desired when put into opera-

science (including information systems) research tion. There are opportunities for applying MS/OR

journals. It appears that while much attention has at all levels of DRP planning, development, im-

been paid by vendors and organization to the de- plementation and operation, however we focus on

velopment of hardware and software tools for the development phase where MS/OR has been

addressing specic aspects of a disaster (e.g. Dry- most noticeably absent and can have its greatest

den, 1997; Bucholz, 1997; Merrill, 1997), little at- impact. In this paper we presents a mixed-integer

tention has been paid to formal modeling of the mathematical decision model for selecting subplans

DRP process. In the instances where the problem for a DRP. We use randomly generated hypothet-

has appeared in the academic journals the focus ical problems to demonstrate the feasibility of MS/

has been on examining the general features of a OR for decision support in DRP development.

disaster recovery plan rather than on decision The rest of the paper is organized as follows:

support. But as noted by Jackson (1997), Creat- Section 2 provides an overview of DRP concepts;

ing a good plan is no easy task. For DRPs are Section 3 provides a sample of outstanding DRP

inherently complex, given the various types of research problems; Section 4 provides an OR-

possible interactions that could occur between based solution approach for addressing one of the

target resources, solution resources and the envi- research problems described in Section 3; and -

ronment. Also as observed by Howard (1997), nally in Section 5, the paper terminates with a brief

the danger is not over once the re has been put discussion of the contribution of the paper and

out, so that survival is not just a matter of putting possible directions for future research.

K.-M. Bryson et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 141 (2002) 679688 681

2. Overview of DRP concepts time objective (RTO), and its own reliability

prole. In developing the DRP, an organization

2.1. Some general axiomatic statements about must select among competing alternatives. Typi-

DRPs cally budget limitations, resource limitations, and

complexity issues are major driving forces behind

We begin this subsection by listing some general the need to rst generate alternative plans, and

axiomatic statements about DRPs: secondly to design the DRP by selecting from

the set of alternatives. A mathematical modelling

Several possible disasters can occur. approach provides the capability to select these

Each disaster has a set of possible debilitating subplans in a rational manner and simultaneously

eects. address concerns about consistency, feasibility,

Each eect has the ability to aect a number of completeness, and reliability.

business functions.

To protect against each eect, a set of (solution) 2.2. Properties of good DRPs

resources are necessary.

Two strategies are possible: prevention (risk A DRP should have the properties of feasibility,

mitigation) and recovery. completeness, consistency, and reliability. The fea-

Some recovery resources may be substitutable. sibility property relates to whether the DRP is fea-

Substitutable resources do not necessarily pos- sible in terms of resources (e.g. skilled and unskilled

sess the same level of eciency (e.g., a back manpower, hardware and software resources, time)

hoe and a set of hand-held shovels do not have availability. Now complete mock-up testing of a

the same eciency level). DRP is rarely feasible, and so testing is usually re-

Some resources can be used to handle more stricted to a narrow focus area of DRP which is

than one eect. covered by a subplan. However, even this partial

Some resources will require the existence of testing of the DRP has major disadvantages in-

other resources. cluding disrupting operations and manpower costs,

A disaster recovery plan is made up of a set of while not guaranteeing the feasibility of the full

subplans, resources, rules, and procedures and DRP. The completeness property relates to whether

must aim at recovering from at least one eect. the DRP covers all important target organizational

resources and functions from the debilitating ef-

A DRP is made up of procedures and rules that fects of disasters. Are there some resources that we

utilize solution resources (e.g. hot sites) that are believe are covered by our DRP that are not in fact

aimed at protecting and/or reviving target orga- covered by the DRP? The consistency property is

nizational resources, functions, or processes (e.g. concerned with whether the dierent components of

information systems). Because there are dierent the DRP are consistent. Because the focus is often

types of disasters that could occur, each of which on local feasibility, it is possible that though two

could have dierent eects on dierent organiza- subplans of the DRP are individually feasible, that

tional target resources, a DRP or DRS is made up taken together they are infeasible. This could be

of a set of component subplans, each of which is caused by the fact that both subplans require the

aimed at protecting/reviving a set of target re- use of the same set of solution resources at the same

sources from the debilitating eects of a specic time. Finally, the reliability of a DRP is a measure

disaster. It is not uncommon for alternate recovery of the likelihood of the plan achieving its pre-

subplans to exist for the same disaster eect (for established continuity, recovery, and restoration

example internal versus external hot sites, or hot objectives. Because, the implementation of a DRP

sites versus cold sites for the recovery of a data is essentially the activation of a project, it is very

processing function). Each subplan, however, will likely that parts of the project network could fail.

have its own resource requirements, its own acti- Hence the critical path to recovery can be severely

vation and escalation procedures, its own recovery aected by unforeseen events.

682 K.-M. Bryson et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 141 (2002) 679688

2.3. Developing DRPs that could be used to eectively (i.e. exceeds target

eectiveness) protect against that eect. The full

Development of a disaster recovery plan or DRP thus consist of a set of DRSPs. Each such

strategy involves the following phases: (1) vulner- DRSP has an associated procedure that utilizes a

ability assessment, (2) organizational impact as- subset of the solution resources in a specied way.

sessment (or business impact analysis (BIA)), (3) The level of utilization of a given resource varies

denition of detailed requirements and continuity, from subplan to subplan. Again some of these

recovery, and restoration objectives, (4) develop- solution resources may require other solution re-

ment of alternative subplans; (5) the evaluation sources for their eective use in the given subplan.

and selection of the subplans which will constitute We require that all these solution resources (both

the DRP, (6) testing of the DRP, and (7) mainte- primary and secondary) be explicitly linked with

nance of the DRP. Testing is usually done at the the given subplan. We also assume that some

local subplan level, and so while it addresses subplans are mutually exclusive. The reasons for

the property of feasibility, it does not address this could vary. One possibility is that both plans

the other properties. Because we are focusing on could require the full utilization of a particular

business continuity, these considerations should be resource.

included in the design/development phase of the

process. Although phases 5 and 6 are often per- 3.2. DRP implementation and testing costs

formed separately and sequentially in practice,

they are not independent. The objective of testing For this problem we are required to develop a

the DRP is to determine whether the plan will DRP that protects a set of business functions from

execute according to the specied performance a specic set of disasters. Now each of the com-

levels if and when it becomes necessary. The test- ponent DRSP has associated cost of implementa-

ing of DRP is supposed to result in some degree tion, cost of testing, and time to test the DRSP.

of condence that the plan will execute success- Given that testing of a DRSP tends to disrupt

fully. There is no mechanism at stage 5 to integrate regular operations there is an interest in having the

some of the concerns at stage 6 in determining the total test time to be as small as possible. As usual

outcomes of stage 5. The mathematical model pro- there would be an interest in minimizing the total

vides a mechanism for eectively integrating con- cost (i.e. implementation cost plus test cost) of the

cerns at stages 5 and 6 so that at the end of stage 6, DRP. This problem thus involves the attempt to

the outcome will be at a higher degree of condence. ideally simultaneously minimize three objectives

(i.e. total implementation cost, total test cost, total

test time) in a manner that results in the DRP

3. A sample of outstanding DRP research problems having the feasibility, consistency, completeness

and reliability properties.

In this section we present an overview of three

DRP problems that could be suitably addressed by 3.3. Risk of lock out

mathematical modeling techniques. In the follow-

ing section we present a mathematical model for An o-site disaster recovery vendor has several

addressing the subplan selection problem. primary customers. There will be a number of

subsets of customer locations based on geograph-

3.1. Subplan selection ical proximity that will have simultaneous disaster

declarations from a storm, tornado, hurricane, etc.

Our aim here is to determine the resources that For other locations, disasters would occur at the

should be acquired in order to maximize the total customers sites independent of each other. Given

expected value of the recovery capability. In this that the demand for the resource is triggered by the

model it is assumed that for each disaster eect, occurrence of one of several causes (re, ood,

there is a set of disaster recovery subplans (DRSP) accidents, human error, plane crash, earthquake,

K.-M. Bryson et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 141 (2002) 679688 683

etc.), there is the risk of two or more customers eavg the minimum desired average of the reli-

requiring the site at the same time. That risk is ability measures for the selected set of

high if the disaster is a natural disaster (hurricane, subplans

tornado, etc.). The company needs to assess the wsj a binary parameter (0,1) whether subplan

risk of contracting with a given vendor. s provides recovery capability for eect j

vs a value measure ofPthe recovery potential

of subplan s, vs j2J wsj gj pj

4. A mathematical model of the subplan selection ys a binary variable that indicates whether

problem subplan s is acquired is selected

zr a binary variable that indicates whether

In this section, we present a mixed-integer solution resource r is acquired

model for the subplan selection problem (i.e. se-

lecting a group of subplans from a number of 4.1. The mathematical formulation

alternatives in order to establish the disaster re-

covery capability for the organization). X

Max ms ys 1

s2S

Notation

subject to:

K set of business functions X

cr zr 6 B; 2

R1 set of solution resources that occur in real r2R

quantities (e.g., time)

R2 set of solution resources that occur in in- X

ys 6 1; j 2 J; 3

teger quantities (e.g., equipment) s2Sj

R set of solution resources: R R1 [ R2

J set of disaster eects X

urs ys zr 6 0; r 2 R; 4

I set of disaster types s2Sr

S set of recovery subplans

Sj set of subplans that can protect against X

es eavg ys P 0; 5

disaster eect j s2S

Sr set of subplans that use resource r

Mq the qth set of mutually exclusive plans ys 2 0; 1; s 2 S; 6

Q a set of indices, 1; 2; . . . ; jQj

fij the likelihood of disaster type i having Zr > 0 and real; r 2 R1 ; 7

disaster eect j

ak the relative importance (or criticality) of Zr P 0 and integer; r 2 R2 : 8

business function k

hjk the likelihood that eect j would aect The objective of the model is to maximize the

business function k total value of the recovery capability of the set of

pj given a disaster has occurred, thePlikeli- subplans chosen. Constraint (2) is a budget con-

hood of experiencing eect j, pj i2I fij straint that stipulates that the cost of solution re-

gj the relative importance of a disaster eect source requirements for the selected subplans must

j based on P its potential business impact not exceed a specied budget limit. Constraint (3)

where gj k2K ak hjk states that at most one subplan from the set of

B budget limit primary plans for a given eect can be selected.

urs the quantity of solution resource r re- Constraint (4) is a logical constraint which allows

quired by subplan s the required solution resources for a selected sub-

cr the unit cost for solution resource r plan to be acquired. Constraint (5) ensures that the

es the reliability measure of subplan s average of the reliability measure for a selected set

684 K.-M. Bryson et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 141 (2002) 679688

of subplans exceed the minimum specied value indicates the likelihood of a given subplan

eavg . achieving its RTO. This measure can be estab-

lished by a careful analysis of the potential failure

4.2. Comments on the model points of a subplan.

The major desirable DRP properties of com- Determination of the relevant sets and param-

pleteness, feasibility and reliability would be ad- eter values can be done using a set of interaction

dressed both in the mathematical model itself and matrices (e.g. matrices A; B; C; D below). Below we

through pre-processing procedures such as de- describe a process for accomplishing this.

scribed in Section 4.2.2. In this model the feasi-

bility property is addressed in this model by Step 1:

constraints (2) and (4), the consistency property is Identify the relevant set of disaster types I.

addressed by constraint (4), and the reliability Identify the relevant possible disaster eects J.

property is addressed by constraint (5). For this This is done by identifying the target infrastruc-

particular DRP problem the completeness property tural and system resources that support each

is addressed in the rst four phases of the DRP business function (see Matrix A1). For each

development cycle that would precede the appli- such supporting target resource (e.g. computers,

cation of the mathematical model (i.e. vulnerabil- electric power lines, roads, personnel), identify

ity assessment, business impact analysis, denition the eects that each disaster could have on the

of detailed requirements, and development of al- target resource. Each X in the matrix corre-

ternate subplans), and also in the mathematical sponds to a disaster eect, but multiple X en-

model. A pre-processing procedure that would tries could correspond to the same disaster eect.

partly address the completeness property and also Cross reference the disaster types and the disas-

lead to the determination of relevant parameters is ter eects in Matrix B, providing for each cell

described in Section 4.2. an estimate fij of the likelihood of disaster i

In ascertaining the cost associated with the having disaster eect j.

subplans selected, we chose to compute total cost Cross reference the disaster eects and the Busi-

by costing out the individual resources. While it is ness Functions in Matrix C, providing for each

possible to cost individual subplans and thereby cell an estimate hjk of the likelihood of disaster

reduce the number of variables in the model, it eect j aecting business function k.

is highly likely that a number of resources are

sharable and may be double-counted if subplans Step 2:

instead of resources were costed out. For example, For each disaster eect j, generate a set of di-

two subplans calling for the use of a hard disk saster recovery subplans Sj that provide recov-

where it is unlikely that both subplans would be ery capability for disaster eect j.

activated at the same time, would account for the Cross reference the disaster eects and the disas-

purchase of two hard disks instead of one if cost ter recovery subplans in Matrix D, providing

is determined by subplans. The utilization of re- for each cell a binary value wsj that indicates

sources within subplans is measured in accordance whether disaster recovery subplan s provides

with the fraction of the time between escalation recovery capability for disaster eect j.

and restoration that the resource will be in use. For each disaster recovery subplan r, identify

This resource would incur a lease or purchase cost the set of solution resources required to execute

depending on the nature of the subplan (e.g., ex- the subplan.

ternal vs. internal hot site). Resources occur in the Cross reference the disaster recovery subplans

form of equipment, facilities, or manpower, and and the solution resources required to execute

can be purchased or leased. The reliability measure the subplan in Matrix E, providing for each cell

K.-M. Bryson et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 141 (2002) 679688 685

a value urs that indicates the amount of resource 4.3. Solution of the subplan selection model (PSM)

r required by disaster recovery subplan s.

A close examination of the PSM will show that

the model as a whole possesses no unique under-

Matrix A1: Business function (BF)/target resource lying constraint structure. There are multiple

(TR) association choice constraints (3) and (4), and knapsack con-

TR1 TR2 ... TRj straints (2) and (6), coupled by a logical constraint

BF1 X X (5). However, to exploit either of these groups of

BF2 X constraints, a signicant relaxation of the con-

BFk X straint set is required thereby causing a signicant

loss in model integrity. A further complicating

Matrix A2: Disaster type (DT)/target resource matter is that the model contains binary vari-

(TR) association ables and real and/or general integer variables.

TR1 TR2 ... TRj We, therefore, explored two heuristic approaches

DT1 X X X to the problem that make use of o-the-shelf

DT2 X solvers such as CPLEX.

DTI X Heuristic 1. The rst approach is to solve the

Matrix B: Disaster type (DT)/disaster eect (DE) original model using a standard branch-and-

association bound approach and terminate the procedure after

DE1 DE2 ... DEj DEjJ j a xed number of branches have been examined.

DT1 f11 f12 f1j The best feasible solution found is used as the

DT2 f21 f22 f2j solution to the problem. We will refer to this

DTI fj1 fj2 fij method as brute-force with termination (BFT).

DTjIj Heuristic 2. The second approach to the

problem involves a three-phase procedure. The

Matrix C: Disaster eect (DE)/business function idea is to attempt to reduce the size of the solu-

(BF) interaction tion space over which the original problem is

BF1 BF2 ... BFk BFjKj solved. Intuitively, this method would be use-

DE1 h11 h12 h1k ful if there are many alternative subplans for

DE2 h21 h22 h2k each eect, and when the number of variables is

DEj hj1 hj2 hjk large.

DEjJ j Each of the three phases represents a relaxation

Matrix D: Disaster recovery subplan (DRSP)/ of the original problem. Phase I determines a set of

disaster eect (DE) interaction subplans that minimizes the total cost of the se-

DE1 DE2 ... DEk DEjJ j lected subplans while ensuring that all eects re-

DRSP1 w11 w1k ceive coverage, and the reliability criterion is met.

DRSP2 w21 w2k We call this the minimum cost total coverage

DRSPs ws1 wsk model. Phase II selects a set of subplans which

DRSPjSj maximizes the total value of their recovery capa-

bility. Cost is ignored in this phase. We call this a

Matrix E: Solution resource (SR)/disaster recovery maximal value total coverage model. The optimal

subplan (DRSP) interaction set of subplans from phases I and II are combined

DRSP1 DRSP2 . . . DRSPs DRSPjSj into a single set. Let Y 1 and Y 2 be the optimal set

SR1 u11 u1s of subplans to Phase I and Phase II, respectively.

SR2 u21 u2s Dene U Y 1 [ Y 2 . The original problem is sub-

SRr ur1 urs sequently solved over the set U. The corresponding

SRjRj models are shown below.

686 K.-M. Bryson et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 141 (2002) 679688

Phase I: Minimum cost total coverage fects can be recovered by 15 alternative subplans.

X

MC : Min c r zr 10 Resource unit costs vary between $ 50 and $ 250.

r2R Utilization levels for a given resource in a given

subject to : subplan varies between .25 and 2.0. The value

X measures for recovery capability vary between 10

ys 1; j 2 J; 11 and 50. We consider scenarios, with 5, 10, and 15

s2Sj

eects. Resources for subplans are selected from a

49: set of 25 types in one case, and from a set of 50 types

Phase II: Maximal value total coverage in another. The number of resources per subplan

X are randomly sampled. Two cases are considered.

MV : Max ms y s 12

s2S

In one case, subplans possess between 1 and 5 re-

sources. In the second case, subplans possess be-

subject to : 4; 6; 7; 11:

tween 1 and 10 resources. A budget limit for the

Phase III: The restricted problem model is obtained as follows. For each eect, de-

X termine the cheapest subplan that can cover the

RP : Max ms ys 13

s2U eect. Determine the total cost value of these

subject to : 2; 8; 9; subplans and set the budget to a percentage of the

X total cost. A value is randomly sampled between

ys 6 1; j 2 J ; 14 55% and 75%.

s2Sj \U

X In generating the problem set, three key pa-

urs ys zr 6 0; r 2 R; 15 rameters were varied: the number of eects (three

s2Sr \U levels), the number of resources types (two levels),

X

es eavg ys P 0; 16 and the number of resources per subplan (two

s2U levels). A single problem in each category was

ys 2 0; 1; s 2 U: 17 generated resulting in 12 test problems shown in

Table 2.

Table 3 shows solutions for the LP relaxation of

4.4. Computational results the model, the three-phase heuristic, the BFT

heuristic, and the brute-force MIP solution of the

As mentioned earlier, there is a dearth of models model. CPLEX was used as the o-the-shelf sol-

addressing selection of disaster recovery subplans, ver, and no special tuning of the solver was done.

and so there is no standard set of test problems for The BFT heuristic terminates the solver after ve

this model. To test our model, we generate 12 hy- feasible solutions have been produced or when a

pothetical problems using a variety of parameter 20,000 iteration limit has been reached. From the

settings (see Table 1). Most of the parameters are results we see that the three-phase heuristic per-

generated using uniform distributions. Disaster ef- formed extremely well. In 11 cases the solution

obtained by the three-phase approach is veriably

Table 1 optimal. In problem 11, however, the methodology

Problem parameters provided the better of the two feasible solutions

Parameter Distribution with a duality gap of less than 2%.

Subplans per eect Uniform (1, 5)

Resource unit costs (cr ) Uniform (50, 250) 4.5. Computational and implementation issues:

Resource utilization (urs ) Uniform (0.25, 2)

Problem size and solution diculty

Subplan values (vs ) Uniform (10, 50)

Number of eects 5, 10, and 15

Number of resource types 25 or 50 The proposed mathematical formulation for the

Number of resources per Uniform (1, 5) and Uniform DRP requires data for various parameters in the

subplan (1, 10) following table and as indicated in the notation at

Budget limit (B) Uniform (0.55, 0.75)

the beginning of Section 4:

K.-M. Bryson et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 141 (2002) 679688 687

Set parameter Where used of the formulated problem. Therefore they do not

Set of business Incorporated into tech- pose any diculty in terms of solution methodol-

functions, K nological coecient ogy. The key parameters in terms of problem size

Set of solution Part of constraint set are as follows:

resources, R

Set of disaster Part of constraint set Set parameter Probable range Size of entity

eects, J of cardinality

Set of disaster Incorporated into tech- Set of disaster jJ j 525 Small business

types, I nological coecient eects, J to a large city

Set of recovery Part of constraint set Set of solution jRj 51000 Small business

subplans, S resources, R to a large city

Set of recovery jSj 3100 Small business

Most of these data will be estimated and are re- subplans, S to a large city

quired to compute the technological coecients

The parameters that translate directly into

constraint types are the sets J, R, and S. The

Table 2 ranges of probable cardinality values for these sets

Problem characteristics

are dependent on the granularity of the denition

Problem No. of No. of No. of

of the disaster eects for these disaster types and

number eects resources resources

per subplan the size of the organization or entity to be covered

by the plan. This granularity will determine the

1 5 25 15

2 5 25 110 solution resources and the scope of the subplans

3 5 50 15 for risk mitigation and/or disaster recovery. If a

4 5 50 110 subset of disaster eects calls for identical set of

5 10 25 15 resources then those eects can be aggregated into

6 10 25 110

a single eect. Also a large number of subplans,

7 10 50 15

8 10 50 110 depending on the size of the organization, will

9 15 25 15 likely include plans that are redundant since other

10 15 25 110 plans will cover the same set of eects. The lower

11 15 50 15 limits of these ranges indicate a subjective deter-

12 15 50 110

mination of the size of the problem for small

Table 3

Results of the three-phase heuristic

Problem no. LP relaxation Three-phase heuristic BFT heuristic MIP optimal

1 2047 1767 1767 1767

2 2047 1767 1767 1767

3 2047 1956 1956 1956

4 2047 2047 2047 2047

5 4437 4437 4437 4437

6 4437 4437 4437 4437

7 4437 4437 4437 4437

8 4437 4437 4437 4437

9 6043 6043 5763 6043

10 6043 6043 6043 6043

11 6043 5977 5697 n/a

12 6043 6043 6043 n/a

688 K.-M. Bryson et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 141 (2002) 679688

business organizations, which could be solved by plans and considering various types of cost func-

inspection or without expensive computational tions (linear, convex, concave, etc.) for subplans,

tools. The largest realistic problem anticipated by economic issues can be given more realistic con-

our formulation will have about a thousand con- sideration in designing a cost-eective recovery

straints, but the size of most problems will likely strategy.

be in the range of a hundred. There are tools that

can handle a million constraints, and a thousand

References

constraints will not present a computational chal-

lenge for most tools, and the heuristic three-phase Bucholz, C., 1997. Safeguarding data from disaster. Telephony

procedure proposed in this research, further di- 232 (7), 38.

saggregates the problem and provides a realistic Carson, B., 1997. Ten vital steps to save your C/S system from

approach to deriving an optimal solution. disaster. Datamation 43 (2), 123126.

CPLEX Callable Library, CPLEX Optimization Inc., Incline

Village, NV, USA.

Dryden, P., 1997. Cheyenne rides to windows NTs rescue.

5. Conclusion Computerworld 31 (8), 10.

Howard, L., 1997. Time is of the essence, disaster pro says.

In this paper, we have shown how MS/OR National Underwriter, 1314.

modeling can be used to provide strategic decision Jackson, J., 1997. Give your lan a hand. Security Management

41 (8), 4452.

support for DRP selection. We have presented a Jenkins, L., 2000. Selecting scenarios for environmental disaster

new model for selecting subplans in building a planning. European Journal of Operational Research 121

DRP/DRS that addresses the concerns of feasi- (2), 275286.

bility, consistency and completeness. The objective Levitt, A.M., 1997. In: Disaster Planning and Recovery: A

of the model is to maximize the total value of the Guide For Facility Professionals. Wiley, New York, p.

1997.

coverage provided by the set of selected subplans Merrill, K., 1997. Ontrack expands service to VARs. Computer

subject to several constraints. The model, which Reseller News 721, 5359.

contains, real, binary, and general integer vari- Pidd, M., deSilva, F., Eglese, R., 1996. A simulation study for

ables can be solved using a variety of methods. In emergency evacuation. European Journal of Operational

Research 90 (3), 413419.

this paper we used the o-the-shelf solver called

Sarker, B., Mahankali, S., Mann, L., Triantaphyllou, E., 1996.

CPLEX to solve a number of hypothetical prob- Power restoration in emergency situations. Computers and

lems using both optimal and heuristic approaches. Industrial Engineering 31 (1/2), 367370.

The results demonstrate that reasonable solutions Sclafane, S., 1996. Internet growth spurns disaster recovery

can be found in reasonable time. Recognizing that service. National Underwriter, 3233.

little modeling of disaster recovery issues has taken Tamura, H., Yamamoto, K., Tomiyama, S., Hatono, I., 2000.

Modeling and analysis of decision making problem for

place to date in MS/OR literature, our model mitigating natural disaster risks. European Journal of

represents a forward step in providing what is a Operational Research 90 (3), 461468.

fast growing discipline with rigorous models for Tevis, T., 1996. Reducing the cost of distributed data recovery

supporting decision making. Consequently, our using ADSM. Computer Technology Review 278-9647, 48

51.

contribution is prescriptive rather than descriptive

Torode, C., 1997. A recovery bonanza. Computer Reseller

in nature. The model can also be expanded to in- News 748, 6566.

clude operational costs by allowing a temporal Violino, B., 1996. Serious security. Information Week 607, 107

dimension. By using 35 year life cycles for sub- 108.

- IT Contingency PlanEnviado porJan Erik Rañopa
- 2SA970Enviado porNacho Consolani
- Risk Based Inspection Planning for Structural SystemsEnviado porBaran Yeter
- Paper g e mEnviado porpabloabufom
- Ch.6Enviado porMark Naguib El-A'bd
- Plant-Wellness-Edn1-PDF-Book.pdfEnviado porGyogi Mitsuta
- File-1377138300Enviado pordaddar1
- Plant-Wellness-Edn1-PDF-Book.pdfEnviado porRiksa Wisudya Achmadsyah Suganda
- Cost Risk OpEnviado poraoe1831
- 1Enviado porgurunathan14
- PC3SH_datasheetEnviado porKrista Tran
- 123-optimizaitonEnviado porashish
- 2SA1312_datasheet_en_20140301Enviado porkale
- Maintenance and Repairs Schedualing AlgoritmsEnviado porxurcroh
- MGMT 530 Course Project Managerial Decision Making Proposal Week 6 and Week 7Enviado porMike Russell
- tmsa2.pdfEnviado porChander Mehta
- Evaluation of Data Submitted in APPA’s 2011 Distribution System Reliability & Operations SurveyEnviado porEgbodor Peter
- D4-04 HyApproval WP4 D4-4 Reliability Data Id and Review V1-0 DNVEnviado porkakalakas
- Upload 31.docEnviado porganeshrud
- 10% PM RuleEnviado porfkarimz862467
- Bell&Ross - "Second to noneEnviado porMaarten Schäfer
- Safety&Security RoadwayTunnelsEnviado porJjune96
- El Mantenimiento Centrado en La ConfiabilidadEnviado porJorge Mauricio Levet
- Upload 30.docEnviado porganeshrud
- Ford Full APQPEnviado porandrechua
- Automation Power Systems Risk AnalysisEnviado porTejaswi Shukla
- Reliability Improvement Program for Industrial Power GenerationEnviado porSyedNadeemAhmed
- ger-3660Enviado porYandri Paulus
- Multiobjective evolution programming method for feeder reconfigurationEnviado porapi-3697505
- Service Note - Engineering and Consulting Services for Motors and Generators_9AKK105627_04-2012Enviado porJor Billacis

- Wu (2014) Business intelligence in risk management Some recent progresses.pdfEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Wu (2014) Business intelligence in risk management Some recent progresses.pdfEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- 8D4C95F18EBA - 2012shuttlebus Logo eEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Roof DrainageEnviado porISAIASHEREDIA
- Aoki and Rothwell (2013) a ComparativeinstitutionalanalysisoftheFukushimanucleardisaster ENERGY POLICYEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Iwata (2014) Public AndprivatemitigationfornaturaldisastersinJapanEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- 9783642036460-c1 (3)Enviado pormichael17ph2003
- FADesignManual v2 12 SPEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- 491038Enviado pormichael17ph2003
- Noy (2010) the Economics of Natural Disasters in a Developing Country the Case of VietnamEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Yucenur and Demirel (2012). Group Decision Making Process for Insurance Company Selection Problem With Extended VIKOR Method Under Fuzzy Environment. Expert Systems With ApplicationsEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Ainuddin (2012) Communityresilienceframeworkforanearthquake Prone Area in BaluchistanEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Wu (2013) Multi-scaleseismichazardandriskintheChinamainland With Implication for the Preparedness Mitigation and Management of Earthquake Disasters an OverviewEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Abbas (2013) a Semi-quantitativeriskassessmentmodelofprimaryhealth Care Service Interruption During Flood Case Study of Aroma Locality Kassala State of SudanEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- 2 22 2013Sudano-Perz PresentationEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Hood (2013) Investor Response to a Natural Disaster Evidence From Japan's 2011 EarthquakeEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Zeng (2010) Development Evaluation of China’s Policy-Oriented Agricultural Insurance Based on the Realization Degree of Policy ObjectivesEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Pasaribu (2010) Developing rice farm insurance in Indonesia.pdfEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Pasaribu (2010) Developing rice farm insurance in Indonesia.pdfEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- You (2014) Risk, Under-Investment in Agricultural Assets and Dynamic Asset Poverty in Rural ChinaEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- You (2014) Risk, Under-Investment in Agricultural Assets and Dynamic Asset Poverty in Rural ChinaEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Pasupuleti (2013) Designingculturallyresponsivebuiltenvironmentsinpost disaster.pdfEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Iwata (2014) Public AndprivatemitigationfornaturaldisastersinJapanEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Joerin (2012) Assessingcommunityresiliencetoclimate-relateddisastersin Chennai IndiaEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Paul, S. and Routray, J. (2011). Household response to cyclone and induced surge in costal Bangladesh coping strategies and explanatory variables. Nat Hazards..pdfEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Noy (2010) the Economics of Natural Disasters in a Developing Country the Case of VietnamEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Panda (2013) Adaptive Capacity Contributing to Improved Agricultural Productivity at the Household Level Empirical Findings Highlighting the Importance of Crop InsuranceEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Eiser (2012) Risk Interpretationandaction Aconceptualframeworkfor Responses to Natural HazardsEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Eiser (2012) Risk Interpretationandaction Aconceptualframeworkfor Responses to Natural HazardsEnviado pormichael17ph2003
- Chen Et Al. (2Policy Support, Social Capital, And Farmers' Adaptation to Drought in China. Global Environmental Change.Enviado pormichael17ph2003

- Q Series Insulation Monitoring Module QE82LG CatalogEnviado porAndrew Maverick
- Torts CasesEnviado porCaroline Lee
- Rubin's TheoryEnviado porBeerna Grande
- CourseOutline TAMEnviado porJyoti Budhia
- Vulnerability of the People to Fire Hazard: A case study in Planned & Unplanned part of Dhaka CityEnviado porBijoy Roy
- Affidavit of Clear Perfect Allodial Land Title for (1)Enviado porJames Barnett
- Problems in a-level PhysicsEnviado porweews
- Working Capital Management and Ratio Analysis of Tata Steel FinalEnviado porPradnya Shetty
- Student Manual.pdfEnviado porJames Hobbs
- j-work-sb-ansEnviado porapi-237740413
- Kosovo warEnviado porElton Hasani
- The Pillars of HellEnviado porCristianFachelli
- [GATE NOTES] Engineering Mathematics - Handwritten GATE IES AEE GENCO PSU - Ace Academy Notes - Free Download PDF - CivilEnggForAllEnviado porsharma
- MetalCompl DrugsEnviado porFan Nhân
- 400 Years Between the TestamentsEnviado porTammy Pieper - Bonner
- Seyla BenhabibEnviado poraribali
- b1-preliminary-handbook-2020.PDFEnviado porNic
- Investor's Opinion on IVIX and VIX FuturesEnviado porsuryagc
- DKD-R 5-4_EngEnviado porsmartbell
- QA APMP Pre-course Handbook v2.0Enviado porSam Roesch
- Evaluation in the UN SystemEnviado porMotaqi
- 5 New Code of Ethics for Nurses August 2008Enviado porMarshalee Francis
- Lapeyre v. United States, 84 U.S. 191 (1873)Enviado porScribd Government Docs
- System Pporf in Garment IndustryEnviado porgoca
- Definitions of Stock ExchangeEnviado porKaranPatil
- Myanmar / Burmese - English - Czech Students' Dictionary (without contents)Enviado porCzech Sarana
- dp4785Enviado porJunior Miranda
- DSP Butterworth FilterEnviado porSivakumarRajendran
- The Doctrine of Anarcho-RoyalismEnviado porEmile Yusupoff
- Ultra Fast Computing Using Photonic Crystal Based Logic GatesEnviado porijcsis