A Conceptual Reference Framework for Enterprise Resilience Enhancement

[EN] Enterprise resilience is a key capacity to guarantee enterprises' long-term continuity. This paper proposes the enterprise resilience Conceptual Reference Framework to characterize enterprise resilience capacity. The framework is composed of 71 disruptive events that enterprises consider as endangerments to their continuity. The framework also comprises constituent capabilities of enterprise resilience in terms of preparedness and recovery capabilities and elements that support the transition from the AS IS situation to the TO BE one, which are preventive actions (for preparedness capability) and knowledge registration actions (for recovery capability). From the preparedness perspective, 403 preventive actions are currently defined. Each preventive action is specific for every disruptive event. However, it is worth noting that a preventive action can also be applied to different disruptive events. From the recovery perspective, the proposed framework indicates knowledge registration related to (i) the occurrence of disruptive events; (ii) the recovery actions performed to re-establish the normal enterprise operation level. Further research lines are addressed to develop quantitative methods and tools to assess the extent of enterprises' resilience following the foundations of the proposed conceptual framework.This work was supported in part by the European Commission under the Grant Agreement No. 691249 and the Spanish State Research Agency (Agencia Estatal de Investigacion) under the Reference No. RTI2018-101344-B-I00-AR.Sanchis, R.; Canetta, L.; Poler, R. (2020). A Conceptual Reference Framework for Enterprise Resilience Enhancement. Sustainability. 12(4):1-27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041464S127124Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the Resilient Supply Chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2), 1-14. doi:10.1108/09574090410700275Craighead, C. W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Handfield, R. B. (2007). The Severity of Supply Chain Disruptions: Design Characteristics and Mitigation Capabilities. Decision Sciences, 38(1), 131-156. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00151.xOhio History Central, Dayton, Ohio, General Motors Strikehttps://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Dayton,_Ohio,_General_Motors_Strike_(1996)Blackhurst *, J., Craighead, C. W., Elkins, D., & Handfield, R. B. (2005). An empirically derived agenda of critical research issues for managing supply-chain disruptions. International Journal of Production Research, 43(19), 4067-4081. doi:10.1080/00207540500151549Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1-23. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245Lomba-Fernández, Hernantes, & Labaka. (2019). Guide for Climate-Resilient Cities: An Urban Critical Infrastructures Approach. Sustainability, 11(17), 4727. doi:10.3390/su11174727The Importance of Resilience. Why Do Some Children Bounce Back from Adversity Better Than Others—and Can That Quality Be Taught?http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1015897,00.htmlSmith, P., Hutchison, D., Sterbenz, J. P. G., Schöller, M., Fessi, A., Karaliopoulos, M., … Plattner, B. (2011). Network resilience: a systematic approach. IEEE Communications Magazine, 49(7), 88-97. doi:10.1109/mcom.2011.5936160Stoltz, P. G. (2003). Building resilience for uncertain times. Leader to Leader, 2004(31), 16-20. doi:10.1002/ltl.58Labaka, L., Hernantes, J., & Sarriegi, J. M. (2015). Resilience framework for critical infrastructures: An empirical study in a nuclear plant. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 141, 92-105. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.009Home, J. F., & Orr, J. E. (1997). Assessing behaviors that create resilient organizations. Employment Relations Today, 24(4), 29-39. doi:10.1002/ert.3910240405Riolli, L., & Savicki, V. (2003). Information system organizational resilience. Omega, 31(3), 227-233. doi:10.1016/s0305-0483(03)00023-9Madni, A. M., & Jackson, S. (2009). Towards a Conceptual Framework for Resilience Engineering. IEEE Systems Journal, 3(2), 181-191. doi:10.1109/jsyst.2009.2017397Resiliencia Organizacional. Transformando la Adversidad en Fuente de Innovaciónhttp://www.gerenciadinamicahoy.com/2011/02/resiliencia-organizacional.htmlThe Agility Advantage: A Survival Guide for Complex Enterprises and Endeavorshttps://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a631225.pdfGilly, 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.2013.09.004Kamalahmadi, M., & Parast, M. M. (2016). A review of the literature on the principles of enterprise and supply chain resilience: Major findings and directions for future research. International Journal of Production Economics, 171, 116-133. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.10.023Mamouni Limnios, E. A., Mazzarol, T., Ghadouani, A., & Schilizzi, S. G. M. (2014). The Resilience Architecture Framework: Four organizational archetypes. European Management Journal, 32(1), 104-116. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2012.11.007Cabral, I., Grilo, A., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2012). A decision-making model for Lean, Agile, Resilient and Green supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research, 50(17), 4830-4845. doi:10.1080/00207543.2012.657970Pettit, T. J., Croxton, K. L., & Fiksel, J. (2013). Ensuring Supply Chain Resilience: Development and Implementation of an Assessment Tool. Journal of Business Logistics, 34(1), 46-76. doi:10.1111/jbl.12009Soni, U., Jain, V., & Kumar, S. (2014). Measuring supply chain resilience using a deterministic modeling approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 74, 11-25. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2014.04.019Munoz, A., & Dunbar, M. (2015). On the quantification of operational supply chain resilience. International Journal of Production Research, 53(22), 6736-6751. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1057296Kim, Y., Chen, Y.-S., & Linderman, K. (2014). Supply network disruption and resilience: A network structural perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 33-34(1), 43-59. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.10.006Erol, O., Sauser, B. J., & Mansouri, M. (2010). A framework for investigation into extended enterprise resilience. Enterprise Information Systems, 4(2), 111-136. doi:10.1080/17517570903474304Pettit, T. J., Fiksel, J., & Croxton, K. L. (2010). ENSURING SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE: DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK. Journal of Business Logistics, 31(1), 1-21. doi:10.1002/j.2158-1592.2010.tb00125.xLee, 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.1527-6996.0000075Sanchis, R., & Poler, R. (2019). Enterprise Resilience Assessment—A Quantitative Approach. Sustainability, 11(16), 4327. doi:10.3390/su11164327How Poisoned Tylenol Became a Crisis-Management Teaching Modelhttps://time.com/3423136/tylenol-deaths-1982/Benzene Incident Haunts Perrierhttps://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19910219&id=L8gSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CfoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3676,2504946&hl=esBDO Technology Risk Factor Reporthttps://www.bdo.com/getattachment/d10c417f-beb7-4bb9-8835-2b2ec727ce2b/attachment.aspx?2017-Technology-Riskfactor-Report-Brochure_WEB.pdfSupply Chain Resilience Report 2015http://www.bcifiles.com/bci-supply-chain-resilience-2015.pdfCabero Almenara, J., & Barroso Osuna, J. (2013). La utilización del juicio de experto para la evaluación de TIC: el Coeficiente de competencia experta. Bordón. Revista de Pedagogía, 65(2), 25-38. doi:10.13042/brp.2013.65202Comfort, L. K., Sungu, Y., Johnson, D., & Dunn, M. (2001). Complex Systems in Crisis: Anticipation and Resilience in Dynamic Environments. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 9(3), 144-158. doi:10.1111/1468-5973.00164Ponomarov, S. Y., & Holcomb, M. C. (2009). Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 20(1), 124-143. doi:10.1108/09574090910954873Haimes, Y. Y., Crowther, K., & Horowitz, B. M. (2008). Homeland security preparedness: Balancing protection with resilience in emergent systems. Systems Engineering, 11(4), 287-308. doi:10.1002/sys.20101Svensson, G. (2002). A conceptual framework of vulnerability in firms’ inbound and outbound logistics flows. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 32(2), 110-134. doi:10.1108/09600030210421723Kleindorfer, P. R., & Saad, G. H. (2009). Managing Disruption Risks in Supply Chains. Production and Operations Management, 14(1), 53-68. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00009.xHendricks, K. B., Singhal, V. R., & Zhang, R. (2008). The effect of operational slack, diversification, and vertical relatedness on the stock market reaction to supply chain disruptions. Journal of Operations Management, 27(3), 233-246. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2008.09.001Natarajarathinam, M., Capar, I., & Narayanan, A. (2009). Managing supply chains in times of crisis: a review of literature and insights. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(7), 535-573. doi:10.1108/09600030910996251Cucchiella, F., & Gastaldi, M. (2006). Risk management in supply chain: a real option approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(6), 700-720. doi:10.1108/17410380610678756Sanchis, R., Sanchis-Gisbert, M. R., & Poler, R. (2020). Conceptualisation of the Three-Dimensional Matrix of Collaborative Knowledge Barriers. Sustainability, 12(3), 1279. doi:10.3390/su12031279Sanchis, R., & Poler, R. (2019). Origins of Disruptions Sources Framework to Support the Enterprise Resilience Analysis. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52(13), 2062-2067. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.509Bhamra, R., Dani, S., & Burnard, K. (2011). Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future directions. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5375-5393. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.563826Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Sokolov, B., & Ivanova, M. (2017). Literature review on disruption recovery in the supply chain. International Journal of Production Research, 55(20), 6158-6174. doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1330572Paton, D., & Johnston, D. (2001). Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 10(4), 270-277. doi:10.1108/eum0000000005930Luers, A. L., Lobell, D. B., Sklar, L. S., Addams, C. L., & Matson, P. A. (2003). A method for quantifying vulnerability, applied to the agricultural system of the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. Global Environmental Change, 13(4), 255-267. doi:10.1016/s0959-3780(03)00054-2Dovers, S. R., & Handmer, J. W. (1992). Uncertainty, sustainability and change. Global Environmental Change, 2(4), 262-276. doi:10.1016/0959-3780(92)90044-8Ricciardi, F., Zardini, A., & Rossignoli, C. (2016). Organizational dynamism and adaptive business model innovation: The triple paradox configuration. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5487-5493. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.154Tomlin, B. (2006). On the Value of Mitigation and Contingency Strategies for Managing Supply Chain Disruption Risks. Management Science, 52(5), 639-657. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0515Sanchis, R., & Poler, R. (2019). Mitigation proposal for the enhancement of enterprise resilience against supply disruptions. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52(13), 2833-2838. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.638Comfort, L. K., Siciliano, M. D., & Okada, A. (2011). Resilience, Entropy, and Efficiency in Crisis Management: The January 12, 2010, Haiti Earthquake. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 2(3), 1-25. doi:10.2202/1944-4079.1089Self-Assessment Tool to Improve Enterprise Resilience—SATIERhttp://satier.blogs.upv.es/files/2020/02/Questionnaire_Offline_SATIER_English.zi

Resilience trinity: safeguarding ecosystem functioning and services across three different time horizons and decision contexts

Ensuring ecosystem resilience is an intuitive approach to safeguard the functioning of ecosystems and hence the future provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). However, resilience is a multi‐faceted concept that is difficult to operationalize. Focusing on resilience mechanisms, such as diversity, network architectures or adaptive capacity, has recently been suggested as means to operationalize resilience. Still, the focus on mechanisms is not specific enough. We suggest a conceptual framework, resilience trinity, to facilitate management based on resilience mechanisms in three distinctive decision contexts and time‐horizons: 1) reactive, when there is an imminent threat to ES resilience and a high pressure to act, 2) adjustive, when the threat is known in general but there is still time to adapt management and 3) provident, when time horizons are very long and the nature of the threats is uncertain, leading to a low willingness to act. Resilience has different interpretations and implications at these different time horizons, which also prevail in different disciplines. Social ecology, ecology and engineering are often implicitly focussing on provident, adjustive or reactive resilience, respectively, but these different notions of resilience and their corresponding social, ecological and economic tradeoffs need to be reconciled. Otherwise, we keep risking unintended consequences of reactive actions, or shying away from provident action because of uncertainties that cannot be reduced. The suggested trinity of time horizons and their decision contexts could help ensuring that longer‐term management actions are not missed while urgent threats to ES are given priority

The role of urban built heritage in qualify and quantify resilience. Specific issues in Mediterranean city

The Mediterranean city represents a significant example of urban organism, based on masonry construction and characterized by typological processes of growth. The material consistency and the temporal continuity of built heritage in Mediterranean city make relevant its interpretation and analysis according to the resilient approach. The declination of this approach in many disciplines generated a substantial diversity among the definitions of resilience (Francis and Bekera, 2014). Consequently, frameworks, adopted for a quantitative or qualitative assessment, underline the lack of standardization and rigor in defining resilience measurements. A review of resilience literature and actual applications in urban context permit to understand that there are different operators working on the field: on the one hand there are international organizations, on the other hand there are academics. The review of both the two ambits of investigation intends to clarify specific properties and convergence points in order to trace an evolution of conceptual framework and to identify general features of urban resilience. This process is fundamental in focusing the main aims of the research program: the definition of the role of urban built heritage, given by the close correlation between masonry constructive technique, typologies and morphologies, its material value in urban system, and its relevance in Mediterranean city in constitution of urban resilience (UNISDR, 2012a). Despite an increasing number of academic studies concerning the role of built environment in defining and improving cities resilience, their major attention is still focused on street patterns and lifelines infrastructures. The paper concludes how the role of built heritage remains insufficiently explored and a correct definition of urban structure is still missing inside the domain of infrastructural resilience

Lean and green – a systematic review of the state of the art literature

The move towards greener operations and products has forced companies to seek alternatives to balance efficiency gains and environmental friendliness in their operations and products. The exploration of the sequential or simultaneous deployment of lean and green initiatives is the results of this balancing action. However, the lean-green topic is relatively new, and it lacks of a clear and structured research definition. Thus, this paper’s main contribution is the offering of a systematic review of the existing literature on lean and green, aimed at providing guidance on the topic, uncovering gaps and inconsistencies in the literature, and finding new paths for research. The paper identifies and structures, through a concept map, six main research streams that comprise both conceptual and empirical research conducted within the context of various organisational functions and industrial sectors. Important issues for future research are then suggested in the form of research questions. The paper’s aim is to also contribute by stimulating scholars to further study this area in depth, which will lead to a better understanding of the compatibility and impact on organisational performance of lean and green initiatives. It also holds important implications for industrialists, who can develop a deeper and richer knowledge on lean and green to help them formulate more effective strategies for their deployment