The functioning and resilience of modern societies have become more and more dependent on critical infrastructures. Severe disturbance to critical infrastructure is likely to reveal chaotic operational conditions, in which infrastructure service providers, emergency services, police, municipalities, and other key stakeholders must act effectively to minimize damages and restore normal operations. This paper aims to better understand this kind of operational environment resulting from, for example, a terrorist attack. It emphasizes mutual interdependencies among key stakeholders in such situations. The empirical contribution is based on observations from a workshop, in which participants representing the critical services and infrastructures in Finland discussed in thematic groups. Two scenarios guided the workshop discussions; nationwide electricity grid disruption and presumably intentionally contaminated water supply in a city. The results indicate that more attention should be paid to the interdependencies between critical infrastructures, as well as to the latent vulnerabilities hidden inside the systems. Furthermore, producing security seems to require continuous interaction and creation of meanings between extremely different actors and logics. This implies a need for changes in thinking, particularly concerning the ability to define problems across conventional administrative structures, geographical boundaries and conferred powers.

Complexity and uncertainty are framing the modern world, whilst also affecting issues on security and sustainability. There is a need to prepare for known threats and identified risks, but also to improve the ability to cope in situations that are difficult to recognize or describe beforehand. What is at stake—both at the organizational and individual level—is the ability to make sense of uncertain and ambiguous situations. Analyzing two empirical cases, this study aims to shed light on the abilities of experts, who have acted in very challenging situations, in which deviating from established procedures and abandoning politeness have been necessary to respond effectively. The first case deals with a threat of serious violence faced by a police officer. The second case focuses on the actions of an executive fire officer during a rescue operation after an explosion at a shopping mall. This paper concludes by arguing that pre-established procedures require experts to reflect on their usability in exceptional situations as relying on them could also have detrimental effects.

No abstract