You are here: Home / Theory / Resilience Research / … the meaning of resilience is vague

… the meaning of resilience is vague

December 13, 2009 By 13 Comments

I have been accepted to speak at a BCI conference in the New Year, so I sent a rough outline of the session to a number of colleagues for comment. Despite the small sample I think it indicates that this concept of resilience is still unclear in many BC professionals’ minds.

I asked these folks if they would want to attend the session I had described, or what they would expect to hear in a presentation about resilience and uncertainty.

The responses were very helpful, but varied widely.

Some examples;

  • The subject is abstract and would only appeal to the more intellectual BC person
  • BCM will be superceded by Resilience
  • It needs to be clear about the difference between BCM and the management of resilience.
  • The subject/concept is inherently vague
  • It contained all the current buzz words
  • Every paper/presentation defines resilience as something different

I sometimes forget that very few people have the time, or the inclination, to explore these sort of issues in great detail.  I suppose that makes promoting this conversation all the more important.

It also means that I may have to put a little more work into that presentation. So please help me out;

  • The conference is themed “Resilience over Uncertainty”.
  • My session is titled “In Defense of Uncertainty”.
    • Why, because without uncertainty there would be no need for BCM or Resilience.
  • The session is to explore the concept of resilience, position it relative to traditional BCM and explore the growing uncertainty that stems from supply chains and organisational interdepence.

Would you want to attend a session like this at a BC Conference? Why/Why not?

What would you expect to hear about in such a session?

Is there a lot of intellectual BC professionals out there?

I would appreciate your comments.

Photo Credit

Share on TwitterShare on TumblrShare via email
Filed Under: Resilience Research, Resilience Thinking
  • http://www.husdal.com/ Jan Husdal

    Would you want to attend a session like this at a BC Conference? Why/Why not?

    Most definitely yes. I would love to hear how business continuity and resilience relate to each other, and how they are different or whether they at all are different.

    What would you expect to hear about in such a session?

    I’m not sure, but I think I would like to hear something along the lines of Helen Peck’s article on “Reconciling supply chain vulnerability, risk and supply chain management”, which I’ve reviewed on my blog. As to the difference between resilience and traditional business continuity, I don’t see any conflict, because, to me, in the end, they’re both about the same things: How to survive and continue doing business after a major impact. And it’s not just about the business world. In today’s interlinked and globalized world, where everything depends on everything else, and hardly anything can stand on its own, one company’s dis-continuity can eventually lead to a societal dis-continuity.

    Is there a lot of intellectual BC professionals out there?

    Good question. I for one would like to consider myself as being in that category.

    • Ken Simpson

      Thanks for the comment Jan. I shall check out the article/post you mention.

      You point about the global interlinking is really valid, this is what should be driving all of this thinking.

      I think I need to post in more detail about what I mean when I refer to “traditional BC” – love it when I get inspired to write about something early in the day!

      Thanks

  • http://www.husdal.com Jan Husdal

    Would you want to attend a session like this at a BC Conference? Why/Why not?

    Most definitely yes. I would love to hear how business continuity and resilience relate to each other, and how they are different or whether they at all are different.

    What would you expect to hear about in such a session?

    I’m not sure, but I think I would like to hear something along the lines of Helen Peck’s article on “Reconciling supply chain vulnerability, risk and supply chain management”, which I’ve reviewed on my blog. As to the difference between resilience and traditional business continuity, I don’t see any conflict, because, to me, in the end, they’re both about the same things: How to survive and continue doing business after a major impact. And it’s not just about the business world. In today’s interlinked and globalized world, where everything depends on everything else, and hardly anything can stand on its own, one company’s dis-continuity can eventually lead to a societal dis-continuity.

    Is there a lot of intellectual BC professionals out there?

    Good question. I for one would like to consider myself as being in that category.

    • Ken Simpson

      Thanks for the comment Jan. I shall check out the article/post you mention.

      You point about the global interlinking is really valid, this is what should be driving all of this thinking.

      I think I need to post in more detail about what I mean when I refer to “traditional BC” – love it when I get inspired to write about something early in the day!

      Thanks

  • Ken Simpson

    Follow up link for a post relating to this item at Agile Continuity

    … For the most part BC professionals and managers are not intellectuals. Now I believe this to be a positive thing, as they are far too busy making a difference and getting things done. …

    http://www.agilecontinuity.org/bcm-intellectual-honesty/

  • Ken Simpson

    Follow up link for a post relating to this item at Agile Continuity

    … For the most part BC professionals and managers are not intellectuals. Now I believe this to be a positive thing, as they are far too busy making a difference and getting things done. …

    http://www.agilecontinuity.org/bcm-intellectual-honesty/

  • Lee Spencer

    Ken,

    I think you are pulling on a string that is going to lead to some interesting places. The comment that resilience is an abstract concept is indicative of the chasm between the intellectual and the practical.

    Many (dare I say most) practitioners are solely focused on the practical. Take for example the word resilience as it relates to BCM and EM. Will adopting resilience as an objective really change the practical application of what BCM and EM professionals do on a day to day basis? Unless you can show that it will or it does, I think you will find it hard to garner grass roots engagement on the topic.

    On the other hand your discussion seems to dovetail nicely with the recent survey of businesses that shows that our clients are more interested in an all hazards approach to preparedness. Is this an outcome of the discussions on resilience? The danger may be becoming an advocate for change when you are only exploring the abstract concept.

    Just some thoughts.

    Lee

  • Ken Simpson

    Getting practical with it …

    Hello Lee, thanks for the comment.

    I believe you are right about the desire to demonstrate the practical – which is essentially why I posed the question. There is this tension between the resilience thinking of groups like Resilient Orgs (New Zealand) and on the other extreme a number of computer companies who sell Resilience as a part number.

    The computer companies have made it into a very practical issue – just not very useful.

    As I have developed the presentation that this post refers to it has become very obvious to me that the profession (and I suspect M is much the same) is totally focussed on the Science and not wanting to address the Art.

    I don't think resilience has (or perhaps ever will) reach the domain of science.

    Not only do we have to do some things differently, we have to start thinking about them differently.

    But I do take your point, there needs to be more discussion on what we can do.

    For those who are interested I will post the presentation on Slideshare (next Thursday) and put a link to it on the blog.

  • Alex

    My apologies Ken, I guess I didn’t see this post somewhere along the line.
    I was recently observing a client “DR” exercise/test at a 3rd party vendor location and had a bit of chat with one of the vendor’s BCM/BCP/DR reps. He was saying that if your org has BCPs in place – something he helps corps develop – then the client is resilient. I didn’t quite agree, as I think it’s more than that and noted a quote I came across awhile ago that said it nicely (I don’t know who it’s attributed to): “Business Continuity Management is something you do; resilient (resilience) is something you are.”
    I liked it but I don’t think he quite got the meaning of it.

    Alex

    • Ken Simpson

      The beauty of this medium is that people are regularly finding old stuff and building on it.

      I know I disagree with your local vendor – but then he is in the business of selling that particular snake oil. I am working on a post that would argue the opposite point – many companies with BC Plans in place have actually made themselves less resilient. But that is an issue for another day.

      The quote – not sure I have seen it exactly as you put it, but it is good.
      “resilience is something that you are” is a comment I have used a bit, I would attribute it to Erica Seville at Uni of Canterbury (NZ) – the Resilient Orgs school.

      The meaning being that resilience is defined by outcomes, not inputs.

      I will see if I can dig out a specific reference and send it to you so you can see the context.

  • Pingback: … just Gold :: Contemplating …