resilience is …

… something I have been studying, researching and discussing via this blog for the past 2 years. To mark the anniversary of starting the blog, I will attempt to summarize the state of my own thinking over a series of posts this week.

For those who are interested to compare changes and refinements in thinking, here is the link to last year’s anniversary post.

Resilience is weakened by obsession with “Dictionary definitions”

Resilience is a concept. The definitions offered by Ecology, Engineering and Social Science are not the same, nor are they readily inter-changeable.

Different areas of research attach their own meaning to this concept  – when we adopt or adapt an existing definition, then we need to be aware of any implicit assumptions and world-views that flow from the original discipline. Some of these concepts do not translate well between the different sciences.

The meaning assigned to the concept of resilience can vary significantly between different schools of thought. Some position resilience as applicable only after a disruptive event, just the “bounce back” or recovery aspect. Others position it before the event, thereby including the scope of preventing the disruption in the first place.

If you take part of your definition from the field of ‘Resilience Engineering’ then you are inheriting assumptions and concepts that relate to the ‘after the disruption only’ model of resilience. That can mean you have incoherent meaning if you try and apply it in a different context.

I am more inclined to the understanding of resilience that comes from ecology rather than the engineering disciplines. But even those do not totally meet the need in dynamic, contemporary organisations.

Resilience is a cognitive function

I will define resilience as a different way of thinking about issues and problems.
Different, and situational – the type of thinking needs to be tailored to the situation and the context.

We have numerous disciplines to assist with the mechanical and practical aspects – Risk Management, BCM, Info & Physical Security, etc – why do we need to re-invent every aspect. Rather we could augment these disciplines with additional perspectives and theory that are not currently included in their respective bodies of knowledge.

Resilience is not one size fits all – there is no “one right mindset” that has to be applied. It means using engineering concepts and Systems Thinking when that approach is applicable. It also means having the capability to use Ecological concepts and Complexity Thinking when these are applicable.

Perhaps we also need to add a line from the Serenity Prayer – “and wisdom to know the difference”.

Resilience is marked by “when” not “if” thinking.

By this I mean the acceptance that you need to be ready for when a disruption will occur, not be debating the likelihood of being disrupted. Part of this mode of thinking includes an acceptance that there are limits on our ability to prevent a disruption.

All along I have talked about a role for ‘Robustness’ in the concept of resilience. I am coming to conclude that role is smaller than I first thought.

Yes, we need to consider appropriate levels of investment in becoming more robust. But we can never eliminate all chance of being impacted. Resilience does not mean that you cannot be disrupted.

Resilience flows from the acceptance that we will be disrupted, even if it is only by the things we did not think of, or did not consider probable enough to build mitigations against.

Resilience is the capability to respond to what is possible, not just what is probable.

Resilience is being prepared to absorb uncertainty when it impacts, not seeking to eliminate or control uncertainty.

Resilience is a multi-disciplinary endeavour

No single discipline will be able to achieve this on its own, nor can any single discipline lay claim to ownership of a ‘resilience body of knowledge’.

More importantly, resilience requires synergy across the disciplines – not convergence of disciplines. Convergence will narrow the range of thinking that will be applied to the problem, not widen it.

Resilience only has meaning in context

There can be many different contexts, but let me initially just address two that are very relevant to the concept of resilience in organisations;

• Strategic
• Resilience in this context, as described by Hamel, Valikangas and others, is the capability to sense an imminent problem and adapt – to make changes prior to a crisis.
• Operational
• In this context resilience is more often being assessed against the capability to adapt after being disrupted – the capability to recover from the crisis.

The meanings are not the same, and the message and application needs to be tailored for each context.

The strategic context also establishes the limits on Operational resilience, either consciously or unconsciously, by various means such as control of the resources that are available for this purpose.

Resilience is rooted in awareness

There is a very common thread across much of the literature that highlights this aspect – it is potentially the most common element. Early detection of a threat – even before it may have disrupted us – is the base on which resilience must be built.

You will see this described in various ways which may include;

• Environment scanning
• Detecting ‘Weak Signals’
• Sense Making
• Situational Awareness – normally applicable during an incident

Without these capabilities, the other investments in building resilience may be in vain.

 

I will elaborate on some of these points, and include a couple of additional points, later in the week.

As always, your thoughts and comments would be appreciated.