The National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and the Risk Management Framework was formed with the goal of providing an organized strategy that will be utilized to create national objectives, targets, and obligations. The created priorities, targets, and obligations are essential for the protection of significant infrastructure and fundamental resources so that Federal funding, as well as resources, are maximized in the most appropriate way to decrease chances of susceptibilities, threats and reduce the occasions of attacks and other cases (DHS, 2009). NIPP and Risk Management Framework were eventually created to safeguard the nation’s crucial infrastructure sealing all the loopholes of defeat (Labaka, Hernantes, & Sarriege, 2016) . The NIPP concentrates on several aspects of security so that an increased state of security is guaranteed.
The different stages of security that the NIPP ensures are quite many. The main stage is that of prioritizing various risk assessment outcomes to establish a comprehension of the significant levels that need to be considered in ensuring that the most appropriate mitigation of risks is offered. Another stage involves coming up with security goals that describe particular results (DHS, 2009). NIPP also recognizes assets that have the capacity of constituting the crucial function of the country (Labaka, Hernantes, & Sarriege, 2016) . It also quantifies the possibility of tackling probable risks. It also enables the implementation of protective plans that facilitate combating the risks and managing them.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Feedback Loop Design
The feedback loop design was utilized to facilitate the Federal administrators and the Critical Infrastructure as well as Key Resources so that they can monitor developments and establish recommended programs on how to offer more appropriate security and safety to the nation (Alcaraz & Zeadally, 2015) . Every plan or program that has always been implemented has strengths and limitations, and thus the feedback look design cannot be an exception. This specific design reinforces the model as it concentrate on the creation of plans to handle the potential risks that could occur during the various stages of the government (DHS, 2009). Possibly, this specific model has a capacity of using help within the financial system sector and would not eventually cause harm to the model.
Risk Management Approach
Considering a risk management approach is appropriate for safeguarding the nation’s crucial infrastructure. This specific approach guarantees a harmless and most secure infrastructure. This is possible as it ensures prevention, deterrence, neutralization, and mitigation of the impacts of terrorists that target to abolish and abuse our Nation’s Critical Infrastructure as well as Key Resources (Labaka, Hernantes, & Sarriege, 2016) . The approach also guarantees responsibilities for several risk management strategies in the entire time of implementing and executing the plan. The strategies employed include deterrence of threats, mitigation of susceptibilities, and reducing the consequences. If the strategies were keenly considered, the Nation’s infrastructure would end up being irrepressible.
Greatest Impact on Steps of the Risk Management Framework
Many diverse steps have the capacity of creating a great impact on various phases of the Risk Management Framework. One specific step is very critical is planning. Any efforts of executing a task are dependent on prior good planning, which guarantees its success. Planning is fundamental to ensuring a continuous success in terms of provision of safety in a Nation’s infrastructure (DHS, 2009). The critical infrastructure of the nation needs proper planning at every stage to continue running smoothly. For instance, a contingency plan must be considered in readiness of any calamities that might come up. If proper planning was not put in place at the beginning, such accidents that arise may eventually destroy the infrastructure.
Areas of Criticisms of the NIPP Model and Ways of Dealing with Them
NIPP Model has often been criticized in various ways. The first specific area that has always been targeted is how the NIPP handles the dynamic attitudes and preferences of the public as well as the cultural variations that are created because of terrorism. The solution to this could entail communicating better law enforcement framework at the time of the event and after it. The public is interested in knowing the potential risks and what to do to prevent them (DHS, 2009). They are frustrated when they do not know what to do. Another area that is often disapproved is less planning and execution. Deficient planning creates panic when things go wrong during implementation (Alcaraz & Zeadally, 2015) . The only approach to lack of planning is simply prioritizing necessary plans for the circumstances that arise and ensuring a backup plan for any mishaps that may crop up. The NIPP was formed with an intention of achieving a more resilient nation, which can only be made possible by consistent planning and re-planning before and during execution.
References
Alcaraz, C., & Zeadally, S. (2015). Critical infrastructure protection: Requirements and challenges for the 21st century. International journal of critical infrastructure protection , 8 , 53-66.
DHS, D. (2009). National Infrastructure Protection Plan: Partnering to Enhance Protection and Resiliency. Retrieved January 8, 2019.
Labaka, L., Hernantes, J., & Sarriegi, J. M. (2016). A holistic framework for building critical infrastructure resilience. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 103 , 21-33.
