Resilience Engineering: chances and challenges for a comprehensive concept

Hiermaier, Stefan; Scharte, Benjamin; Fischer, Kai

doi:10.4337/9781786439376.00015

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, business continuity emphasizes the link between the overall aspirations of a given organization, that is, its mission, vision, and strategy, and its approach to managing risks (Herbane, 2010; Hiles, 2014; Kato & Charoenrat, 2018). It ensures that activities produce reliable and consistent outputs through standardized structured approaches to all processes within each organizational unit by identifying interdependencies between different activities across the whole organization (Adamou, 2014; Hassel & Cedergren, 2019; Hiermaier et al., 2019). Finally, it emphasizes operational feasibility to ensure operational reliability under live conditions and provide results aligned across the organization (Farr & Bailey, 2019; Kendall et al., 2005).…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Knowing what to expect entails the development of Focusing on value‐adding critical activities provides a foundation for decision‐making and a platform for analyzing robustness and threats to business continuity. Organizational resilience is a strategic ability that an organization can possess to recover from a catastrophic event, while BCM is a set of organizational processes and resources integrated into a coherent management system, providing continuance of activities deemed critical due to their strategic importance (Farr & Bailey, 2019; Hassel & Cedergren, 2019; Hiermaier et al., 2019). What is deemed valuable can differ between organizations based on their strategic importance.…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Managing business continuity in the Arctic: Experiences from mining

Taarup‐Esbensen

2023

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a model for business continuity capacity, which shows how organizations can analyze possible gaps in their business continuity capability and thereby increase their capacity to recover value‐adding critical activities. Using an example of a flooded mine on Svalbard, the study investigated how the mining company Store Norske Spitsbergen Coal Company (SNSK), with considerable experience with similar events and an excellent safety record, could fail to manage a well‐known event and reduce recovery times of its critical activities. The analysis explored how experience in safety and incident management does not necessarily mean that these abilities are transferable to a new but similar event. The study sought to answer the research question: To what extent does SNSK's systematic work with safety, and experience with flooding events, improve business continuity capacity?In the Arctic, emergency response can take hours or days to arrive after the event. A structured recovery system can support pre‐existing platforms aimed at safety, to include the critical activities needed to ensure an organization's overall survival. Systematic work can improve performance and make the organization engage in a virtuous cycle by implementing management structures, risk identification systems, competency development, and processes for the in situ evaluation of hazards. However, as seen here, the organization needs to pay attention to changes that could affect risk assessments and threat levels well‐known events. These insights can be utilized by other organizations seeking synergy when strengthening their safety and business continuity performance.

show abstract

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing business continuity in the Arctic: Experiences from mining

Taarup‐Esbensen

2023

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Durch Literaturrecherchen, drei Workshops mit nationalen und internationalen Experten sowie einer Zusammenarbeit mit weiteren Partnern wie dem Forschungsforum Öffentliche Sicherheit und der Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft KPMG konnte eine Studie erstellt werden, deren Ergebnisse in Form von zehn Handlungsempfehlungen an entsprechende Entscheidungsträger herangetragen wurden (siehe dazu Thoma 2014). Im Anschluss an Resilien-Tech konnte der Autor der vorliegenden Arbeit gemeinsam mit Kollegen am Fraunhofer EMI, insbesondere dem damaligen Institutsleiter und Gründungsvater der deutschen wie europäischen zivilen SiFo, Prof. Dr. Klaus Thoma, die theoretisch-konzeptionelle Beschäftigung mit Resilienz fortführen und in einigen weiteren Publikationen vertiefen (siehe , 2016b, Hiermaier et al 2019, Hiermaier/Scharte 2018, Linkov et al 2014, Thoma/Scharte 2015. Mit einem Verständnis von Wissenschaft als Suche nach dem "Geheimnis der Transformation von Chaos in Ordnung", wurden dabei zwei Aspekte in Bezug auf Resilienz zunehmend klarer (Antonovsky 1997: 149).…”

Section: 1unclassified

“…Der Begriff des Resilience Engineering wird explizit und in scharfer Abgrenzung von seinen organisationswissenschaftlichen Ursprüngen in einem ingenieurwissenschaftlichen, auf Technologie fokussierten Sinn gebraucht. Er wird somit spezifiziert oder -wie der Autor der vorliegenden Arbeit es in einigen Veröffentlichungen ausdrückt -bewusst eingeschränkt (Hiermaier et al 2019: 158, Scharte/Thoma 2016: 134, Thoma et al 2016. Erstmals von Scharte und Thoma so formuliert, gilt nach wie vor, dass "[d]iese bewusste Einschränkung […] eine -wenn auch notwendig unscharfe -Trennung zwischen verschiedenen Optionen" der Erhöhung von Resilienz erlaubt (Scharte/Thoma 2016: 134).…”

Section: 1unclassified

Resilience Engineering

Scharte¹

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing complexity of our world makes the occurrence of disruptive events with unforeseeable consequences more likely. The future is characterised by uncertainty; therefore, societies and their critical infrastructures need resilience, understood as generic adaptability thanks to flexibility and loose resources. In this book, the author argues that resilience can be normatively desirable if it is used to combine individual freedom and security. Using this as his premise, he develops a new concept of resilience for civil security research and shows how the engineering sciences can implement it through system principles such as diversity, modularity, decentralisation and redundancy.

show abstract

“…Managing complexity and uncertainty in what are considered high‐risk environments requires continuous adaption of both individual competencies and organizational capabilities. Complex systems such as these cannot be fully specified but relate to continuous changes to the context or its dynamics and they can hence change even as we try to describe their rules and dependencies (Dekker, 2019; Hiermaier, Sharte, & Fischer, 2019, p. 396). In addition, it is known that complexity and interconnections between different systems tend to increase the probability of cascading effects in the case of disruptive events (Perrow, 1984).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Resilience‐Based Approach to Risk Assessments—Building Resilient Organizations under Arctic Conditions

Taarup‐Esbensen

2020

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reliability and higher levels of safety are thought to be achieved by using systematic approaches to managing risks. The assessment of risks has produced a range of different approaches to assessing these uncertainties, presenting models for how risks affect individuals or organizations. Contemporary risk assessment tools based on this approach have proven difficult for practitioners to use as tools for tactical and operational decision making. This article presents an alternative to these assessments by utilizing a resilience perspective, arguing that complex systems are inclined to variety and uncertainty regarding the results they produce and are therefore prone to systemic failures. A continuous improvement approach is a source of reliability when managing complex systems and is necessary to manage varieties and uncertainties. For an organization to understand how risk events occur, it is necessary to define what is believed to be the equilibrium of the system in time and space. By applying a resilience engineering (RE) perspective to risk assessment, it is possible to manage this complexity by assessing the ability to respond, monitor, learn, and anticipate risks, and in so doing to move away from the flawed frequency and consequences approach. Using a research station network in the Arctic as an example illustrates how an RE approach qualifies assessments by bridging risk assessments with value-creation processes. The article concludes by arguing that a resilience-based risk assessment can improve on current practice, including for organizations located outside the Arctic region.

show abstract

Resilience Engineering: chances and challenges for a comprehensive concept

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Managing business continuity in the Arctic: Experiences from mining

Managing business continuity in the Arctic: Experiences from mining

Resilience Engineering

A Resilience‐Based Approach to Risk Assessments—Building Resilient Organizations under Arctic Conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About