The Resilient Blog

Resiliency Should be Comprehensive

Resiliency should be considered as a comprehensive paradigm.

As I've talked with many people about resiliency, I find one of the most common aspects of the conversation being a fairly narrow view of what resiliency means. Most often, this view is presented as an enhanced view of their subject matter expertise or the world in which they work. In other words, their domain on steroids.  For example, and in general:

• The risk management community members I've spoken with see resiliency as a strategic risk management paradigm and often one that can be adequately addressed by a robust Enterprise Risk Management implementation or other high powered risk assessment and management methods.
• The IT community members see resiliency in the context of the protection and recoverability of information management assets/capabilities.
• The preparedness and crisis management communities see resiliency as being able to bounce back quickly because you didn't take too hard of a punch to start with--because you were appropriately hardened and prepared.
• The supply chain communities see the great value in being disruption=proof either through redundancy and flexiblility, and the more of those you are, the more resilient you are likely to be.
• The human capital community sees the discussion of resiliency encompassing the ability of the people being individually and collectively able to cope, flexibly respond, and return to normalcy.

The good news from my perspective is that eveyone is right. However, we would all need to admit that in most companies five separate people or groups would be dispatched to deal with the five areas I cite above. Would they speak to each other and coordinate? Probably not. Would they generate resulting recommendations that balanced overall corporate benefit at the potential "cost" to their particular function/responsibility? I doubt it. Not at least without some overarching framework and common goals that drive them to this balancing. That is one reason I advocate resiliency as a business management paradigm.

Resiliency considerations should start with the premise of what should the organization do to be a surviving and thriving entity, even in the face of major change or crisis. Having the most redundant and secure supply chain helps. As does virtually assured information management capacities. Top-notch plans and procedures for a disaster or crisis is of unquestioned benefit (as long as you've anticipated the type of disaster/crisis). But I suggest that maximizing performance and capabilities in all areas important to resiliency is pretty unattainable to the vast majority of organizations, and it is wise to seek an overall bigger resiliency bang for the buck. This is what a comprehensive resiliency paradigm does.

Darryl Moody

Why We Must Focus on Corporate Resiliency

In the world in which we now live, companies must be resilient to survive and thrive. They must be resilient to protect and preserve their shareholder value and stakeholder interests. That includes preserving business profits, market share, and jobs. And in the case of companies that operate critical infrastructure assets, the physical and economic security of the country. Thus being resilient is a responsibility on multiple levels.

We are not where we must be. In fact, the notion of being resilient is finally getting the very serious consideration that will drive companies to take specific steps to achieve and maintain high levels of resiliency.

The events that can do serious harm to are too numerous to identify and apply specific point protective measures. Consider what is out there to wreak irrevocable harm to corporations—not just threats, but also missed opportunities. The list can begin with terrorist threats, disgruntled employees, corporate sabotage, internet threats, non-compliant employees, out-dated processes, natural disasters, and substandard performance. We must all accept that 100% protection and security is unattainable, but maximizing resiliency is a must. It’s time to focus on being resilient against any reasonably anticipated scenario.

Resiliency is an organization’s capability to maintain its functions and structure in the face of internal or external change, and to respond positively when it can or to degrade gracefully when it must – consistent with its business interests and investment capacities. Resiliency has become the practical response to the need to address a combination of security, preparedness, risk, and survivability issues in an integrated way.

Being resilient is a proactive and determined attitude to remain a thriving enterprise. It moves beyond a defensive security and protection posture and applies the entity’s inherent strength to withstand crisis of any nature. For companies, being resilient becomes a competitive differentiator as the more resilient company is a more reliable business partner and should provide a higher level of stakeholder and shareholder value.

Resiliency is emerging as an empowering paradigm. A resilient organization’s capacities to deflect crisis, absorb their effects, and respond positively also allows it to maximize its abilities to identify and pursue new opportunities, and operate effectively in normal times. In today’s world, the events that impact an organization’s resiliency are asymmetrical, constantly evolving, and rapidly impacted by technology improvements. Thus resiliency must be an underlying management construct within a business operation.

There are no current governmental or regulatory mandates for resiliency. But the motivations for industry leaders to address resiliency are compelling. Resiliency and the management of resiliency makes good business sense. The company’s resiliency posture should be relevant to insurance considerations and financial investment considerations, providing an economic incentive. Eventually, levels of resiliency will be indicative of the health and viability of a publicly-traded company, therefore a reportable condition to regulatory bodies. And finally, for critical infrastructure asset owners and operators, the importance of their company’s resiliency level to infrastructure resiliency is sobering and worthy of addressing.

Whether the crisis stems from a security breach, a natural event, or an unexpected business shock, the resilient organization will be well positioned. Costs impacts should be minimized. Reputation hits should be soft and managed. Confidence blows will be fleeting. Jobs will be saved and the nation will be more secure.

We have a long way to go.

Resiliency paradigms should be adopted by all major companies. There is clear business value to implementing a resiliency management process. There are additional benefits for those organizations that own or operate critical infrastructure assets, as their level of resiliency impacts the resiliency of a geographic region, an industry segment, and ultimately, the nation. Put simply, we cannot have a resilient nation without first having resilient corporations.

Darryl Moody

What Does It Mean to Be Resilient?

I get this question often.  There is no consensus answer or a standard.  I highly doubt that a standard definiton wil ever emerge.  The term "resilient" or "resiliency" is just too useful in far too many situations.  It's one of those "You know it when you see/feel it."  But that won't stop people from trying to pin down a definition.

What I find is that within the various elegant and sometimes artistic (or articulate) definitions being offered, there are some common elements.  The introduction of change or disruption is usually conceded as the call for resiliency and triggering event.  And the ability to survive or bounce back to previous state is the second seemingly universal element.  What immediately jumps to mind is the old Timex watch branding of "taking a licking and keep on ticking."

Resiliency definitions, particularly applied to business situations, will need to get more specific.  For those of us interested in increasing levels of resiliency across the business community, we can't afford to have every conversation starting out with a debate on the basic meaning of the word. 

From time to time, I will post and comment on various definitions of resiliency I see offered  I am paricularly interested to see if the definitons become more narrow or more diverse.

Resilience Day CEO Summit and Symposium

On June 25, the Council on Competitiveness hosted a wonderful event in Washington, entitled Resilience Day.  Te event included a CEO Summit on Capitol Hill, a newsmaker luncheon at the National Press Club and carried on C-SPAN, and an afternoon symposium held at the Department of Commerce.  I believe this event can be seen as a watershed event in the adoption of the resiliency paradigm in corporate America. 

The CEO Summit was significant in that it garnered the direct participation and leadership of Mr. Chad Holliday.  CEO of DuPont.  Mr. Holliday’s obvious engagement with the resiliency issue and the project conducted by the Council on Competitiveness lends great credence to the resiliency cause.   Joining him were senior executives from leading companies  and acadmic institutions like AT&T, Oho State University, and FM Global.  The message was not lost that the event was held on Capitol Hill, but was clearly an Industry led addressing of resiliency.   Government has a role, but I personally believe it is more observing and encouraging at this moment in time.  Industry should seize the lead, like it did at this symposium.

There were no answers or great revelations during the conference— not to those of us who have been in the midst of resiliency discussions over the past few years.  What was of note was the lack of dissenting viewpoints on resiliency.  I suppose this could be considered general acceptance of the concept.   It was also interesting to note that there are numerous variations on the theme of what resiliency means and what ought to be done about it.  And there are more questions than there are  hard and fast answers—at this time. 

The Resilience Day events drew a large and diverse audience of business leaders and practitioners who were treated to great discussions and some practical advice.  I would certainly encourage the Council on Competitiveness and other thought leading institutions to sponsor more such events.