A review of definitions and measures of system resilience
Introduction
Historically, the primary questions asked during a risk assessment study are: (i) what can go wrong?, (ii) what is the likelihood of such a disruptive scenario?, and (iii) what are the consequences of such a scenario? [1]. Risk management strategies have traditionally focused on reducing the likelihood of disruptive events and reducing the potential consequences of the event, as well as some synthesis of both. As such, risk management strategies often emphasized mitigation options in the form of prevention and protection: designing systems to avoid or absorb undesired events from occurring. The main objective of protection strategy is to detect the adversary early and defer the adversary long enough for an appropriate respond. While a protection strategy is critical to prevent undesired events or consequences, however recent events suggested that not all undesired events can be prevent. Hurricane Sandy, which devastated NY/NJ in 2012, is among the more recent examples of a disruptive event that adversely impacted multiple networked systems (e.g., months after the storm, power had not been restored to all communities in the NY/NJ area [2], one million cubic yards of debris impeded transportation networks [3]). Plenty of other disruptions have highlighted the resilience, or lack thereof, of networked systems: the August 2003 US blackout that caused transportation and economic network disruptions [4], Hurricane Isabel devastated the transportation system of the Hampton Roads, VA, region in 2003 and overwhelmed emergency response [5], the 2011 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan, causing over 15,000 confirmed deaths and disrupting global supply chain networks [6]. It is because of these recent large-scale events that the Department of Homeland Security, among others, has placed emphasis on resilience through preparedness, response, and recovery [7], [8].
The term resilience has increasingly been seen in the research literature [9] and popular science literature [10] due to its role in reducing the risks associated with the inevitable disruption of systems. This paper presents a comprehensive review of resilience in various disciplines, published from 2000 to April 2015. In this paper, we primarily focus on the quantitative perspective of modeling resilience, distinguishing our work from existing excellent review papers [11], [12].
The word resilience has been originally originated from the Latin word “resiliere,” which means to “bounce back.” The common use of resilience word implies the ability of an entity or system to return to normal condition after the occurrence of an event that disrupts its state. Such a broad definition applies to such diverse fields as ecology, materials science, psychology, economics, and engineering. A graphical depiction of the initial impact and subsequent recovery of a six recent U.S. recessions is shown in Fig. 1 [13]. For example, figure shows that for the 1980s recession, there was a disruption that affected a change roughly equal to −1.2% and that the recovery lasted roughly six months.
Several definitions of resilience have been offered. Many are similar, though many overlap with a number of already existing concepts such as robustness, fault-tolerance, flexibility, survivability, and agility, among others.
Some general definitions of resilience that span multiple disciplines have been offered. For example, Allenby and Fink [53] defined resilience as the “capability of a system to maintain its functions and structure in the face of internal and external change and to degrade gracefully when it must.” Pregenzer [54] defined resilience as the “measure of a system׳s ability to absorb continuous and unpredictable change and still maintain its vital functions.” Haimes [55] defined the resilience as the “ability of system to withstand a major disruption within acceptable degradation parameters and to recover with a suitable time and reasonable costs and risks.” Disaster resilience is characterized by Infrastructure Security Partnership [56] as the capability to prevent or protect against significant multi-hazard threats and incidents, including terrorist attacks, and to recover and reconstitute critical services with minimum devastation to public safety and health. Vugrin et al. [57] defined system resilience as: “Given the occurrence of a particular disruptive event (or set of events), the resilience of a system to that event (or events) is that system׳s ability to reduce efficiently both the magnitude and duration of deviation from targeted system performance levels.” Two elements of this definition are noted: system impact, the negative impact that a disruption imposes to a system and measured by the difference between targeted and disrupted performance level of system, and total recovery efforts, the amount of resources expended to recover the disrupted system.
The concept of resilience has also been approached from particular disciplinary perspectives and across application domains, including psychology, ecology, and enterprises, among others. A variety of definitions for the notion of resilience have been proposed. We identify four domains of resilience: organizational, social, economic, engineering. Note that this classification may vary depending on researcher׳s perspective. We provide a variety of definitions of resilience according to the four aforementioned groups.
The concept of organizational resilience has emerged to address the need for enterprises to respond to a rapidly changing business environments. The resilience of an organization is defined by Sheffi [19] as the inherent ability to keep or recover a steady state, thereby allowing it to continue normal operations after a disruptive event or in the presence of continuous stress. Vogus and Sutcliffe [20] defined organizational resilience as “the ability of an organization to absorb strain and improve functioning despite the presence of adversity.” Sheffi [21] defined resilience for companies as “the company׳s ability to, and speed at which they can, return to their normal performance level (e.g., inventory, capacity, service rate) following by disruptive event.” McDonald [22] defined resilience in the context of organizations as “the properties of being able to adapt to the requirements of the environment and being able to manage the environments variability.” Patterson et al. [23] highlighted that collaborative cross-checking can greatly enhance the resilience of organizations. Collaborative cross-checking is an enhanced resilience strategy in which at least two groups or individuals with different viewpoints investigate the others׳ activations to evaluate accuracy or validity. By implementing collaborative cross-checking, erroneous actions can be detected quickly enough to mitigate adverse consequences. More definitions of resilience in the context of organizational, enterprises and can be found in [24], [25], [26], [27].
The social domain looks at the resilience capacities of individuals, groups, community, and environment. Adger [28] defined social resilience as “ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and disturbances as a result of social, political, and environmental change.” The Community and Regional Resilience Institute [29] defined the resilience as the capability to predict risk, restrict adverse consequences, and return rapidly through survival, adaptability, and growth in the face of turbulent changes. Keck and Sakdapolrak [30] defined social resilience as comprised of three dimensions: coping capacities, adaptive capacities, and transformative capacities. The term of community resilience is described by Cohen et al. [31] as ability of community to function properly during disruptions or crises. Pfefferbaum et al. [32] defined community resilience as “the ability of community members to take meaningful, deliberate, collective action to remedy the effect of a problem, including the ability to interpret the environment, intervene, and move on”. The concept of resilience has been well studied in subdomains of the social domain such as ecology [33], [34], [35], psychology [36], [37], [38], sociology [39], [40], [41], [42].
Rose and Liao [43] described economic resilience as the “inherent ability and adaptive response that enables firms and regions to avoid maximum potential losses.” Static economic resilience is referred by Rose [44] as the capability of an entity or system to continue its functionality like producing when faces with a severe shock, while dynamic economic is defined as the speed at which a system recovers from a severe shock to achieve a steady state. A more specific definition of economic resilience is presented by Martin [45] as “the capacity to reconfigure, that is adapt, its structure (firms, industries, technologies, institutions) so as to maintain an acceptable growth path in output, employment and wealth over time.”
The concept of resilience in the engineering domain is relatively new in comparison to other domains. The engineering domain includes technical systems designed by engineers that interact with humans and technology, such as electric power networks. Note that Youn et al. [14] defined engineering resilience as the sum of the passive survival rate (reliability) and proactive survival rate (restoration) of a system. Another definition of engineering resilience is presented by Hollnagel et al. [15] as the intrinsic ability of a system to adjust its functionality in the presence of a disturbance and unpredicted changes. Hollnagel and Prologue [16] pointed out that, for resilience engineering, understanding the normal functioning of a technical system is important as well as understanding how it fails. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) [17] defined resilience as the ability of a system to sustain external and internal disruptions without discontinuity of performing the system׳s function or, if the function is disconnected, to fully recover the function rapidly. Dinh et al. [18] identified six factors that enhance the resilience engineering of industrial processes, including minimization of failure, limitation of effects, administrative controls/procedures, flexibility, controllability, and early detection.
Infrastructure systems such as water distribution systems, nuclear plants, transportation systems, and locks and dams, among others, can be considered as subdomain of the engineering domain as their construction and restoration require engineering knowledge. National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) [52] defined the resilience of infrastructure systems as their ability to predict, absorb, adapt, and/or quickly recover from a disruptive event such as natural disasters. Infrastructures are also considered as subdomain of social domain in which the lack of their resilience can lead to adverse impacts on communities. According to Percoco [46], infrastructure systems can greatly improve the economic efficiency of a country. Due to the crucial role of infrastructures on society and economy, research work has recently focused on infrastructure resilience [47], [48], [49], [50]. Ouyang and Wang [51] assessed the resilience of interdependent electric power and natural gas infrastructure systems under multiple hazards, noting how interdependent network performance could be measured in physical engineering terms or in terms of societal impact.
The review of resilience definitions indicates that there is no unique insight about how to define the resilience, however several similarities can be observed across these resilience definitions. The main highlights of resilience definitions reviewed above are summarized as follows:
- •
Some definitions does not specify mechanisms to achieve resilience; however many of them focus on the capability of system to “absorb” and “adapt” to disruptive events, and “recovery” is considered as the critical part of resilience.
- •
For engineered systems, such as nuclear power systems, reliability is often considered to be an important feature to measure an ability to stave off disruption.
- •
Some definitions, such as Sheffi [19] and ASME [17], emphasize that returning to steady state performance level is needed for resilience, while other definitions do not impose that the system (e.g., infrastructure, enterprise, community) return to pre-disaster state.
- •
The definition offered by Haimes [55] suggests a multidimensionality to the quantification of resilience, that particular states of a system are inherently more resilient than others. Further, Haimes stresses that the resilience of a system is threat-dependent.
- •
Some definitions such as Allenby and Fink [53], Pregenzer [54], and Adger [28] defined resilience in terms of preparedness (pre-disaster) activities, while the role of recovery (post-disaster) activities are discarded. Definitions presented by organizations such as National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) [52] emphasized on the role of both preparedness and recovery activities to achieve resilience.
The rest of paper includes the following structure. Section 2 our approach to reviewing the literature, and Section 3 provides a classification methodologies that are used to measure and assess the resilience in various disciplines. Section 4 summarizes important lessons obtained the literature, and Section 5 discusses the existing gaps and restrictions on assessing resilience. Finally, we provide concluding remarks in Section 6.
Section snippets
Literature review methodology
In this section, we discuss framework we used to identify resilience-related literature. We also report, to the extent that we can, the distribution of literature by domains, years of publication, and journals.
To present a breadth coverage of literature review of resilience study, we developed a framework of five steps: (i) online database searching and information clustering, (ii) citation and sample refinement, (iii) abstract review refinement, (iv) full-text review refinement, and (v) final
Qualitative assessment approaches
This section highlights the qualitative resilience assessment approaches categorized as conceptual frameworks and semi-quantitative indices.
Quantitative assessment approaches
This section describes several quantitative resilience assessment approaches that serve as the focus of this review.
Research directions
Based on the literature review presented in this paper, as well as recent reports and calls for proposals by US funding agencies, we identify a few on-going and upcoming research directions that are of interest to the resilience community.
Concluding remarks
Over the past decade, the significance of the concept of resilience has been well recognized among researchers and practitioners. Effort has been devoted to measure the resilience of engineering systems, but challenges still exist. The objective of this paper is to provide a taxonomy and review of approaches to quantify system resilience. We first classified four domains for definitions of resilience: organizational, social, economic, and engineering. Across these domains, the traditional
References (144)
- et al.
Measuring international production losses from a disruption: case study of the japanese earthquake and tsunami
Int J Prod Econ
(2012) - et al.
Resilience engineering of industrial processes: principles and contributing factors
J Loss Prev Process Ind
(2012) - et al.
Resilience of organisations and territories: the role of pivot firms
Eur Manag J
(2014) - et al.
Information system organizational resilience
Omega
(2003) - et al.
Resilience and social support posttraumatic growth of women with infertility: the mediating role of positive coping
Psychiatry Res
(2014) Economic resilience to natural and man-made disasters: multidisciplinary origins and contextual dimensions
Environ Hazard
(2007)- et al.
Scenario-based resilience assessment framework for critical infrastructure systems: case study for seismic resilience of seaports
Reliab Eng Syst Saf
(2014) - et al.
Resilience assessment of interdependent infrastructure systems: with a focus on joint restoration modeling and analysis
Reliab Eng Syst Saf
(2015) - et al.
Towards end-to-end network resilience
Int J Crit Infrastruct Prot
(2013) - et al.
Improving the resilience of metro vehicle and passengers for an effective emergency response to terrorist attacks
Saf Sci
(2014)
Challenges in building resilience engineering (RE) and adaptive capacity: a field study in a chemical plant
Process Saf Environ Prot
Community resilience framework for an earthquake prone area in Baluchistan
Int J Disaster Risk Reduct
A framework for resilience thinking
Procedia Comput Sci
place based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters
Glob Environ Change
A new method for quantitative assessment of resilience engineering by PCA and NT approach: a case study in a process industry
Reliab Eng Syst Saf
Integrated business continuity and disaster recovery planning: towards organizational resilience
Eur J Oper Res
Representing perceived tradeoffs in defining disaster resilience
Decis Support Syst
Characterizing multi-event disaster resilience
Comput Oper Res
Transportation security and the role of resilience: a foundation for operational metrics
Transp Policy
Generic metrics and quantitative approaches for system resilience as a function of time
Reliab Eng Syst Saf
Resilience-based network component importance measure
Reliab Eng Syst Saf
Stochastic measures of resilience and their application to container terminals
Comput Ind Eng
Importance measures for inland waterway network resilience
Transp Res E
Measurement of resilience and its application to enterprise information systems
Enterp Inf Syst
Resilience analysis of soft infrastructure systems
Procedia Comput Sci
Modeling the resilience, friability and costs of an air transport network affected by a large-scale disruptive event
Transp Res A
On the quantitative definition of Risk
Risk Anal
The long road to recovery: environmental health impacts of hurricane sandy
Environ Health Perspect
Cost of storm-debris removal in city is at least twice the US average
The 2003 northeast blackout-five years later
Sci Am
Regional Impact of Hurricane Isabel on Emergency Departments in Coastal Southeastern Virginia
Acad Emerg Med
National Infrastructure protection plan
Quadrennial homeland security review (QHSR)
Integrating risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems
Risk Anal
Resilience: why things bounce back
Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future directions
Int J Prod Res
Resilience: a literature review
Comparing recessions and recoveries: job changes
Resilience-driven system design of complex engineered systems
J Mech Des
Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts
Prologue: the scope of resilience engineering
Innovative Technological Institute (ITI)
The resilience enterprise: overcoming vulnerability for competitive enterprise
Resilience reduces risk
Logist Q
Organisational resilience and industrial risk
Collaborative cross-checking to enhance resilience
Cogn Technol Works
Design resilience in the fuzzy front end (FFE) context: an empirical examination
Int J Prod Res
Orginasational resilience: development of a conceptual framework for organisational response
Int J Prod Res
Social ecological resilience: are they related?
Prog Hum Geogr
Cited by (1256)
Electrification policy impacts on land system in British Columbia, Canada
2024, Renewable and Sustainable Energy TransitionMulti-phased resilience methodology of urban sewage treatment network based on the phase and node recovery importance in IoT
2024, Reliability Engineering and System SafetyMulti-dimensional resilience assessment framework of offshore structure under mooring failure
2024, Reliability Engineering and System SafetyAn agent-based resilience model of oil tank farms exposed to earthquakes
2024, Reliability Engineering and System SafetyBuilding back better: Modeling decentralized recovery in sociotechnical systems using strategic network dynamics
2024, Reliability Engineering and System Safety