4.6 Article

Organizational Resilience to Disruption Risks: Developing Metrics and Testing Effectiveness of Operational Strategies

Journal

RISK ANALYSIS
Volume 42, Issue 3, Pages 561-579

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/risa.13769

Keywords

Disruptions; resilience strategies; risk management; system resilience

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [1952792, 1735139]
  2. Division Of Graduate Education
  3. Direct For Education and Human Resources [1735139] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  5. Directorate For Engineering [1952792] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study presents three metrics for evaluating organizational resilience performance against disruptions, and demonstrates the impact of maintaining operational slack and broadening operational scope on resilience through empirical analysis of manufacturing firms.
This study draws from the system resilience literature to propose three different metrics for evaluating the resilience performance of organizations against disruptions: the initial loss due to the disruption, the maximum loss, and the total loss over time. In order to show the usefulness of the developed metrics in practice, we deploy these metrics to study the effectiveness of two resilience strategies: maintaining operational slack and broadening operational scope, by empirically analyzing the performance of manufacturing firms that experienced a disruption during the period from 2005 to the end of 2014. The results show that maintaining certain aspects of operational slack and broadening business scope and geographic scope can affect these different metrics in different ways. Our results help decisionmakers in risk management to gain a better understanding of the conditions under which the recommended strategies actually improve organizations' resilience, as well as the ways in which they may do so.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available