In an increasingly interconnected world, changes of uncertain nature and impact affect the functioning of human societies that depend on health, ecological, and economic systems. The proposed framework for systems-of-systems resilience explains ways of accommodating and responding to these challenges while encompassing the interfaces of the health, environment, and economy domains and their effect on communities. Resilience is defined as a continuous process and we distinguish between four system properties, five resilience capacities, and a variety of system activities.

The Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) is a graph representing causal pathways for informing the conduct of an observational study. The use of DAGs allows transparent communication of a causal model between researchers and can prevent over-adjustment biases when conducting causal inference, permitting greater confidence and transparency in reported causal estimates. In the era of ‘big data’ and increasing number of observational studies, the role of the DAG is becoming more important. Recent best-practice guidance for constructing a DAG with reference to the literature has been published in the ‘Evidence synthesis for constructing DAGs’ (ESC-DAG) protocol. We aimed to assess adherence to these principles for DAGs constructed within perioperative literature. Following registration on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and with adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting framework for systematic reviews, we searched the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (Embase), the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Cochrane databases for perioperative observational research incorporating a DAG. Nineteen studies were included in the final synthesis. No studies demonstrated any evidence of following the mapping stage of the protocol. Fifteen (79%) fulfilled over half of the translation and integration one stages of the protocol. Adherence with one stage did not guarantee fulfilment of the other. Two studies (11%) undertook the integration two stage. Unmeasured variables were handled inconsistently between studies. Only three (16%) studies included unmeasured variables within their DAG and acknowledged their implication within the main text. Overall, DAGs that were constructed for use in perioperative observational literature did not consistently adhere to best practice, potentially limiting the benefits of subsequent causal inference. Further work should focus on exploring reasons for this deviation and increasing methodological transparency around DAG construction.

PurposeThis paper is motivated by the gap between the extensive academic discussion of industrial resilience and the limited resilience observed in response to large disruptions. Its purpose is to investigate the relationship between the industrial resilience of manufacturing and service operations and the resilience of the supporting financial, legal and political systems. This research identifies the impact of high or low levels of resilience in these supporting systems on the ability of industrial operations to perform as required in disrupted environments.Design/methodology/approachThe authors combine a multi-disciplinary literature review with empirical data from four exploratory case studies. First, the authors review the literature on resilience in the fields of operations management, finance, law and political science to bring the terminology and concepts of these fields closer together. This review also defines the independent variables of the study: financial, legal and political resilience. Second, the authors use the framework from the literature to analyse data from four case studies of operations in difference contexts and sectors.FindingsIndustrial resilience is interdisciplinary, nuanced and complex. High levels of industrial resilience require high levels of financial, legal and political resilience. However, the activities required to improve the resilience of these supporting systems are often outside the locus of control of operations managers. Multiple perspectives on resilience must be coordinated to strengthen the response of industrial operations to large disruptions.Research limitations/implicationsAs a conceptual and exploratory study, this paper does not utilise quantitative data or in-depth case studies. The authors demonstrate the importance of an interdisciplinary perspective on industrial resilience and provide a theoretical framework that can serve as a foundation to further studies of resilience. The review of the literature provides a glossary of definitions of resilience that improves clarity in this disparate field.Practical implicationsManagers can apply the findings of this work to start cross-functional discussions in their firms that recognise the multiple dimensions of industrial resilience and improve the resilience of the supporting systems. The exploratory case studies provide concrete guidance for how managers in the fields of humanitarian and development operations, healthcare and manufacturing can improve industrial resilience by considering the interaction with the supporting financial, legal and political systems.Originality/valueThis study is the first to provide detailed conceptual discussion and empirical evidence for the interdisciplinary nature of industrial resilience in the context of public sector and non-governmental organisations. Combining evidence from different contexts and sectors demonstrates the broad industrial value of this work.