Definition of a framework to support strategic decisions to improve Enterprise Resilience

©yyyy International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC). Originally published in IFAC-PapersOnLine (www.ifac-papersonline.net)[EN] Enterprise resilience is a complex concept that involves different properties and research areas. Based on the literature review, three main properties related to enterprise resilience have been identified: vulnerability, adaptative capacity and recovery ability. On the other hand, an analysis of the current literature approaches to measure and assess enterprise resilience has been described. However, approaches that assess and measure simultaneously the three main properties of enterprise resilience have not been found. To bridge this gap, the paper presents the definition of a conceptual framework to support strategic decisions related to enterprise resilience by defining the main research areas of the identified enterprise resilience properties to provide the basis for further research.The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° NMP2-SL-2009- 229333.Sanchis Gisbert, R.; Poler Escoto, R. (2013). Definition of a framework to support strategic decisions to improve Enterprise Resilience. IFAC papers online. 7(1):700-705. https://doi.org/10.3182/20130619-3-RU-3018.00600S7007057

Risk and resilience in the Scottish social housing sector: ‘We’re all risk managers’

Social housing providers confront an array of risks strategically and operationally. Recently, models of hybrid organisations have been developed to understand how non-profit landlords are changing in response to market and other external pressures. In this paper, we draw on a multidisciplinary conceptual framework of external and internal risks, multiple stakeholders and resilience strategies, as well as the notion of hybridity, in order to make sense of change in Scotland's social housing sector. The paper draws on elite interviews as well as case studies that seek to capture the range of approaches adopted by providers. Although providers handle and respond to risk in a variety of ways, risk management is a necessary part of the management of social housing businesses. Increasingly, providers are concerned with questions of resilience – the need to make themselves as organisations more resilient and also to promote greater resilience amongst tenants as a way of mitigating risk. Our research suggests that this is leading to some positive outcomes e.g. greater diversity within the sector and increased customer focus but there is concern that government policies remain within silos and are insufficiently flexible to deal with changed circumstances and the evolving needs and aspirations of the sector

Constructs of Successful and Sustainable SME Leadership in East Africa

Despite the markedly increased foreign investment, East African economies remain characterized by low levels of investment and capital formation with high level of attrition amongst indigenous small and medium enterprises. While there is a high failure rate amongst these SMEs, some are beginning to turn the corner and are exhibiting signs of robustness, innovativeness and sustainability. Relying on narrative accounts of successful SMEs leaders in Kenya and Uganda obtained through interviews and focus group discussions, this study sought to construct an account of leadership practices and ascriptions of success for SMEs that had succeeded. The study identified eight leadership constructs characteristic of successful SME leaders in Kenya and Uganda grouped into visioning, building commitment, social capital, personal values, anticipation and resilience, resourcefulness, responsiveness, and entrepreneurial orientation. While these results, on the face value, are apparently not unique, it was in the nuances of the leadership practice that difference was made. In conclusion, the study highlights implications for these findings in relation to policy and leadership practice among SMEs

Aligning Organizational Pathologies and Organizational Resilience Indicators

[EN] Developing resilient individuals, organizations and communities is a hot topic in the research agenda in Management, Ecology, Psychology or Engineering. Despite the number of works that focus on resilience is increasing, there is not completely agreed definition of resilience, neither an entirely formal and accepted framework. The cause may be the spread of research among different fields. In this paper, we focus on the study of organizational resilience with the aim of improving the level of resilience in organizations. We review the relation between viable and resilient organizations and their common properties. Based on these common properties, we defend the application of the Viable System Model (VSM) to design resilient organizations. We also identify the organizational pathologies defined applying the VSM through resilience indicators. We conclude that an organization with any organizational pathology is not likely to be resilient because it does not fulfill the requirements of viable organizations.This research has been partially supported by Banco Santander and Universidad de Valladolid.Morales Allende, M.; Ruiz-Martin, C.; Lopez-Paredes, A.; Perez Ríos, JM. (2017). Aligning Organizational Pathologies and Organizational Resilience Indicators. International Journal of Production Management and Engineering. 5(2):107-116. doi:10.4995/ijpme.2017.7423SWORD10711652Annarelli, A., & Nonino, F. (2016). Strategic and operational management of organizational resilience: Current state of research and future directions. Omega, 62, 1-18. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.08.004Beer, S. (1981). Brain of the firm: the managerial cybernetics of organization, J. Wiley New York.Bhamidipaty, A., Lotlikar, R., & Banavar, G. (2007). RMI: A Framework for Modeling and Evaluating the Resiliency Maturity of IT Service Organizations. IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC 2007). doi:10.1109/scc.2007.94Biggs, D., Hall, C. M., & Stoeckl, N. (2012). The resilience of formal and informal tourism enterprises to disasters: reef tourism in Phuket, Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(5), 645-665. doi:10.1080/09669582.2011.630080Coutu, D.L. (2002). How resilience works. Harvard business review, 80(5), 46-56.Doe, P.J. (1994). Creating a resilient organization. Canadian Business Review, 21: 22.Erol, O., Henry, D., Sauser, B., & Mansouri, M. (2010). Perspectives on measuring enterprise resilience. 2010 IEEE International Systems Conference. doi:10.1109/systems.2010.5482333Erol, O., Mansouri, M., & Sauser, B. (2009). A framework for enterprise resilience using service oriented architecture approach. 2009 3rd Annual IEEE Systems Conference. doi:10.1109/systems.2009.4815785Gilly, J.-P., Kechidi, M., & Talbot, D. (2014). Resilience of organisations and territories: The role of pivot firms. European Management Journal, 32(4), 596-602. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2013.09.004Hamel, G., Valikangas, L. (2003). The quest for resilience. Harvard business review, 81(9): 52–65.Henry, D., & Ramirez-Marquez, J. E. (2010). 3.1.1 A Generic Quantitative Approach to Resilience: A Proposal. INCOSE International Symposium, 20(1), 291-301. doi:10.1002/j.2334-5837.2010.tb01071.xHolling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1-23. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245Hollnagel, E. (2010). How Resilient Is Your Organisation? An Introduction to the Resilience Analysis Grid (RAG). Sustainable Transformation: Building a Resilient Organization.Horne III, J.F., Orr, J.E. (1998). Assessing behaviors that create resilient organizations. Employment Relations Today, 24(4): 29–39.Jackson, S. (2007). A multidisciplinary framework for resilience to disasters and disruptions. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 11(2): 91–108.Kendra, J. M., & Wachtendorf, T. (2003). Elements of Resilience After the World Trade Center Disaster: Reconstituting New York City’s Emergency Operations Centre. Disasters, 27(1), 37-53. doi:10.1111/1467-7717.00218Lee, A. V., Vargo, J., & Seville, E. (2013). Developing a Tool to Measure and Compare Organizations’ Resilience. Natural Hazards Review, 14(1), 29-41. doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000075Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243-255. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001Linnenluecke, M. K., Griffiths, A., & Winn, M. (2011). Extreme Weather Events and the Critical Importance of Anticipatory Adaptation and Organizational Resilience in Responding to Impacts. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(1), 17-32. doi:10.1002/bse.708Mallak, L.A. (1997). How to build a resilient organization. In Proceedings of the Industrial Engineering Solutions 1997 Conference. Miami, 170–177.Manyena, S. B. (2006). The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters, 30(4), 434-450. doi:10.1111/j.0361-3666.2006.00331.xPérez Ríos, J. (2010). Models of organizational cybernetics for diagnosis and design. Kybernetes, 39(9/10), 1529-1550. doi:10.1108/03684921011081150Righi, A. W., Saurin, T. A., & Wachs, P. (2015). A systematic literature review of resilience engineering: Research areas and a research agenda proposal. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 141, 142-152. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.007Ruiz-Martin, C., Pérez Rios, J. M., Wainer, G., Pajares, J., Hernández, C., & López-Paredes, A. (2017). The Application of the Viable System Model to Enhance Organizational Resilience. Advances in Management Engineering, 95-107. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55889-9_5Ruiz-Martin, C., Lopez-Paredes, A., Wainer, G. (2017). Organizational Resilience: Conceptualization and Measurement. Submitted.Sanchis, R., & Poler, R. (2013). Definition of a framework to support strategic decisions to improve Enterprise Resilience. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 46(9), 700-705. doi:10.3182/20130619-3-ru-3018.00600Somers, S. (2009). Measuring Resilience Potential: An Adaptive Strategy for Organizational Crisis Planning. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 17(1), 12-23. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5973.2009.00558.xStarr, R., Newfrock, J., Delurey, M. (2003). Enterprise Resilience: Managing Risk in the Networked Economy. Strategy and Business, 30: 70–79.Tillement, S., Cholez, C., & Reverdy, T. (2009). Assessing organizational resilience: an interactionist approach. M@n@gement, 12(4), 230. doi:10.3917/mana.124.0230R. Whitman, Z., Kachali, H., Roger, D., Vargo, J., & Seville, E. (2013). Short-form version of the Benchmark Resilience Tool (BRT-53). Measuring Business Excellence, 17(3), 3-14. doi:10.1108/mbe-05-2012-003

Development of an Extended Product Lifecycle Management through Service Oriented Architecture.

Organised by: Cranfield UniversityThe aim of this work is to define new business opportunities through the concept of Extended Product Lifecycle Management (ExtPLM), analysing its potential implementation within a Service Oriented Architecture. ExtPLM merges the concepts of Extended Product, Avatar and PLM. It aims at allowing a closer interaction between enterprises and their customers, who are integrated in all phases of the life cycle, creating new technical functionalities and services, improving both the practical (e.g. improving usage, improving safety, allowing predictive maintenance) and the emotional side (e.g. extreme customization) of the product.Mori Seiki – The Machine Tool Company; BAE Systems; S4T – Support Service Solutions: Strategy and Transitio

Future prospects for personal security in travel by public transport

This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [grant number EP/I037032/1]. No other funding support from any other bodies was provided.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

A needs theory of governance

New-institutional economics hypothesizes imperfect rationality, self-seeking preferences, monetary-related needs, and opportunism as fundamental features of human behavior. Consistently, new-institutionalist models of governance highlight the efficiency and transaction costs minimizing features of control rights and governance. Differently, needs theory of governance, as here presented, hypothesizes imperfect rationality, multiple needs, and reciprocity, in which case opportunism is reduced to an exception to individual behavior. Consistently, it presents a theory that links production governance with the wellbeing of those partaking in production. Building on Maslow’s human psychology, the governance model suggested in this paper is aimed at evidencing the self-actualization potential of control rights, organizational structures and practices. The application of Maslow’s theory to the institutional structure of organizations suggests that the deepest organizational layers (control rights and governance) broadly correspond to the most basic needs in Maslow’s theory (survival, security and belonging), while the outer layers (managerial models and employment relations) correspond to the fulfillment of the highest needs (self-esteem and self-actualization). Cooperative firms are used as an illustration of governance solutions consistent with needs theory in human psychology