BUSINESS CONTINUITY MANAGEMENT

THROUGH BUSINESS RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

Cahyantoro, Kun Arief

Doctoral Program, Finance Dept., Bogor Agricultural Institute, Bogor

Abstract
Business resilience is built on business continuity principles but extends to help
boost an organization's immune system to cope with challenges, fend off attacks,
heal illnesses, and bounce back faster. Business continuity is process-centered,
while business resilience is more strategic in the form of a holistic approach that is
influenced by the unique interaction between a combination of strategic and
operational factors. BS 65000 explains that organizations can identify specific
indicators of resilience for their business using the business continuity function.
Once identified, these indicators interact with each other to form networks that can
bounce back from the most disruptive events. Also integrating a BCM program into
a resilience program will allow the organization to not only be ready for an event
but to continue taking recovery steps as well.
This study suggests a new framework for evaluating business continuity
through business resilience metrics and for assessing the sustainability and
performance of businesses and their interdependencies taking into account the
effects of technical, social, organizational and economic issues (TOSE).
Researchers use groups of dimensions, parameters, performance characteristics,
or evaluation criteria to measure resilience and measure the potential impact of a
disruption scenario on business continuity. This framework implements the Triple
Bottom Line (TBL) concept which consists of 3 (three) layers: Profit, People, and
Planet, representing Economic Performance, Social Performance and
Environmental Performance. Each of these layers' performance uses a different
metric method (CAMEL, PEOPLES, and SNA) to measure resilience that reflects
an organization's viability.

Keywords: business continuity, business resilience, BS 65000, TOSE, TBL,

CAMEL, PEOPLES, SNA
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

A. PREFACE

Business Continuity Management (BCM) is a proactive approach that

maximizes business opportunities. This enables organizations to optimize the

continuity of operations, optimize the sustainability and performance of their

companies. BCM summarizes the multidisciplinary characteristics of management

and technical science. The scientific discipline is about the management of threats

and their impact on critical operations. Mainly to increase the organization's

capacity to withstand the impact of incidents that could jeopardize the

organization's ability to achieve its objectives (Wong and Shi, 2015).

The ISO 22301 standard defines business continuity as:

“The capability of an organization to continue the delivery of products

or services at acceptable predefined levels, following a disruption”.

One of the main functions of BCM is to protect the organization by maintaining

business continuity and performance, while minimizing negative impacts when an

incident occurs (Hiles, 2007). To achieve effective BCM implementation in

organizations, it is necessary to pay attention to the basic concepts of:

a. Leadership

b. Governance

c. Good business practice

d. Multidisciplinary function

e. Communication

f. Value preservation

g. Adaptation

1
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

Figure 1. BCM Framework

The ISO 22316 standard defines business resiliency as:

“The ability of an organization to absorb and adapt in a changing

environment to enable it to deliver its objectives and to survive and

prosper”.

Resilience has not been adequately explored in literature, even though it is a

rapidly evolving concept (Panteli and Mancarella, 2017). As a result, the idea of

resilience is still quite fuzzy, and the factors that define it are still a matter of dispute

(Bueno, 2012). Beginning with the psychology and ecology sectors, the term

resilience has made its way through almost all of the systems, including the social,

industrial, economic, and infrastructure systems (Gay and Sinha, 2013).

Researchers from different sectors describe resilience in different ways, yet the

main theme of the term is similar. Table 1 describes a few of the terminologies that

are used throughout the literature.

2
Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

3
Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

4
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

Table 1. Terminology of Resilience

Various sectors adopt different dimensions of resilience. Bruneau identified

four types of resilience that should be adequately measured called TOSE: technical,

organizational, social, and economical (Bruneau, 2003). Technical and economical

resilience are primarily related to physical systems, whereas organizational and

social resilience are related to society and nonphysical systems. The four

dimensions are described in detail:

1. The “technical” dimension of resilience focuses on the ability of the built

environment to withstand and recover from disruptive events (Vugrin, 2010).

It describes the capability of a system to perform adequately.

2. The “organizational” dimension of resilience pertains to the function of

organizations in managing facilities and postdisaster response activities. It

refers to the capacity of crisis managers to make decisions and take actions that

lead to the avoidance of a crisis or at least to a reduction of its impact (Labaka,

2015). It typically encompasses measures of organizational capacity, planning,

5
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

training, leadership, experience, and information management that improve

disaster-related organizational performance and problem solving.

3. The “social” dimension of resilience emphasizes the capacity of social ties and

networks in limiting negative impacts from hazards (Giordano, 2017). It

explains the response of society to disasters.

4. The “economic” dimension of resilience refers to the capacity of systems to

minimize, and rebound from, direct or indirect economic losses (Pagano,

2018).

B. BUSINESS CONTINUITY AND BUSINESS RESILIENCE

According to international auditor company reference, PWC, business

resilience is built on business continuity principles but extends to help boost an

organization's immune system to cope with challenges, fend off attacks, heal

illnesses, and bounce back faster. Business continuity is process-centered, while

business resilience is more strategic in the form of a holistic approach that is

influenced by the unique interaction between a combination of strategic and

operational factors (PWC, 2021).

Figure 2. The Relationship between Business Continuity and Business Resilience

Business continuity and business resiliency differ in definition, approach, and

importance aspects (Jamie and Janet, 2014). See Table 3.

6
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

Table 2. Business Continuity and Business Resilience Differences

Traditionally, organizations have used the ISO 22301 standard to meet the

needs of their organization's resilience standard. The increasing need for

organizational resilience demands a correlation between the systems model of risk

management and business continuity management. Establishing a communication

channel between BCM and the risk management system is a means to develop a

comprehensive resilience program (MetricStream, 2021).

There is another standard for organizational resilience from British Standard,

BS 65000, that defined business resiliency as:

“The ability of an organization to anticipate, prepare for, and respond and

adapt to incremental change and sudden disruptions in order to survive

and prosper”.
7
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

BS 65000 explains that organizations can identify specific indicators of

resilience for their business using the business continuity function. Once identified,

these indicators interact with each other to form networks that can bounce back

from the most disruptive events. Also integrating a BCM program into a resilience

program will allow the organization to not only be ready for an event but to continue

taking recovery steps as well (MetricStream, 2021).

Other source from BRCCI (Business Resilience Certification Consortium

International) defined business resilience as an outer ring from business continuity

also disaster recovery (BRCCI, 2008). Business resilience comprises far more than

disaster recovery. It also helps companies recover and adjust easily from unplanned

events, and take advantage of new opportunities (Huegen, 2007). See Figure 3.

Figure 3. Business Continuity and Business Resilience Correlation

Based on both perspectives, business continuity is part of business resilience

and business resilience more broadly includes business viability. It means,

resilience capabilities of the organization reflects the continuity capabilities of the

organization.

8
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

This study suggests a new framework for evaluating business continuity

through business resilience metrics as well as for assessing business sustainability,

business performance and their interdependence taking into account the effects of

technical, social, organizational and economic issues (TOSE). Researchers use

groups of dimensions, parameters, performance characteristics, or evaluation

criteria to measure resilience and measure the potential impact of a disruption

scenario on business continuity.

C. BUSINESS SUSTAINABILITY AND PERFORMANCE

Sustainability has been a frequently stated as challenge for businesses over the

past two decades. By means of the continuous struggle to set a framework for

sustainability. In 1994, Elkington presented concept the Triple Bottom Line (TBL)

as the way for businesses, non-profits organization, and governments measure

sustainability and performance. The concept of TBL in business suggest that the

social and environmental dimensions should be accounted in addition to the

traditional financial dimension (Elkington, 1994). Three dimensions of the TBL are

also referred as the 3P: Profit, People, and the Planet (Hammer and Pivo, 2016).

Several profit and non-profit organizations, as well as government sector

organizations have a growing interest in TBL accounting since it is a decent

approach in cost accounting. Especially in the private sector, a major aspect of CSR

(Corporate Social Responsibility) projects is maintaining transparency in

accounting the impact created on social and environmental.

9
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

According to TBL, a business must address activities in all 3 (three) areas

dimension for sustainability (Elkington, 1994), are:

1. Economic sustainability activities which focus on financial matters including

efficiency, productivity and profit (PROFIT).

2. Social sustainability activities which focus on maintaining mutually beneficial

relationships with employees, customers and the community. This creates

benefits in terms of positive profile with customer, employee and community

(PEOPLE).

3. Environmental sustainability activities which focus on the impact of resource

usage, hazardous substances, waste, emissions and ecosystems on the physical

environment (PLANET).

Figure 4. TBL Framework

Since the 3P's (Profit, People, Planet) do not have a common unit of measure,

discovery of a common unit of measurement is one of the biggest challenges in

TBL (Norman and Macdonald, 2004). There is neither a universal standard method

10
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

for measuring the TBL aspects nor a universally accepted standard to determine the

subcategories under each bottom-line. This allows the business to adapt the general

framework and shape it according to the structure of projects or policies,

requirements of businesses, or nature of the geographical boundaries.

Researchers proposed a novel method using resilience metric as a

measurement unit in TBL under each bottom-line. This method facilitates

benchmarking against companies, regions, or countries. However, the importance

of people bottom-line would be allotted a higher weightage by one business,

whereas the planet bottom-line would be comparatively more important to another

business. Hence, this solution also raises issues of subjectivity.

D. RESILIENCE FORMULA

Resilience is defined by mathematics as (Cimellaro, 2010a):

Figure 5. Resilience Definition Formula

11
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

Resilience index, R, is defined as the normalized area underneath the

functionality-performance function, Q(t). where QTOT(t) = global functionality-

performance function of the area considered (e.g., local, regional); TLC = control

time for the period of interest; t0E = time instant when the event happens; r = spatial

vector defining the position, P, in the region in which the resilience index is

evaluated (Cimellaro, 2010b).

E. RESILIENCE METRIC FRAMEWORK

Using TBL framework, resilience metric as a measurement is divided into 3

(three) area of resilience metric are:

1. Economic performance resilience metric, as a measurement of profit bottom-

line (efficiency, productivity and profitability).

2. Social performance resilience metric, as a measurement of people bottom-line

(customer, employee and community).

3. Environmental performance resilience metric, as a measurement of planet

bottom-line (business ecosystems on the physical environment).

Economic Performance Resilience Metric (PROFIT)

Researchers proposed use “CAMEL” framework to identify a resilience metric

framework related to economic performance (Piyu, 1992). CAMEL proven used in

many financial institution especially banks, to ensure financial institution

performance by rating analysis to covered all financial aspect including efficiency,

productivity and profitability. Currently, CAMEL often using financial ratios to

12
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

measuring the overall financial soundness of a bank and the quality of its

management (Ahsan, 2016).

Figure 6. CAMEL Framework

The component of this rating analisys framework, are:

1. Capital Adequacy

The component of capital adequacy is an important factor to help the institution

in understanding shocked attractive capability during risk. In this study, capital

adequacy is measured by using the equity to total assets ratio (Vong and Chan,

2009). That means, capital adequacy enables an institution to meet any

financial unexpected condition due to all financial risk.

2. Asset Quality

The dimension of asset quality is an important factor to help the institution in

understanding the risk on the exposure of debt. In this paper, this parameter is

measured by the provision for loan loss reserve to total asset ratio (Merchant,

2012). This parameter will benefit the institution in understanding the amount

of funds that have been reserved by the institution in the event of bad

conditions.

13
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

3. Management Quality (efficiency and quality)

Management quality reflects the management soundness of an institution. The

management acts as a safeguard to operate the institution in a good and decent

manner, that is called as excellence management or skillful management.

Whenever controls its cost and increases productivity, the ultimately achieving

higher profits. This parameter is measured by total cost to total income ratio.

4. Earnings Ability (volume and level)

Earning is an important parameter to measure the financial performance of an

organization. Earning quality mainly measures the profitability and

productivity of the institution, including explains the growth and sustainability

of future earnings capacity. Here two ratios are used to determining the

profitability of institution: return on asset and return on equity.

5. Liquidity (strength and level)

Liquidity ratio is a measures the ability to pay its current obligations, example

employee salary and vendors payment (Hazzi and Kilani, 2013). For having

sound company operations it needs to have liquidity solvency. An adequate

liquidity position means a situation, where organization can obtain sufficient

funds, either by rising liabilities or by converting its assets quickly at a

reasonable cost. Here liquidity performance is measured by net cost and

investment to total asset ratio. This ratio can be defined as the amounts of assets

have been engaged in cost and investment.

14
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

In this study, researchers utilize six ratios that that defined parameters of

CAMEL. These are mentioned in the following Table 3.

Table 3. CAMEL Parameters and Ratios

Social Performance Resilience Metric (PEOPLE)

Researchers proposed use “PEOPLES” framework to identify a resilience

metric framework related to social performance (Renschler, 2010, 2011). The

PEOPLES framework based on community resilience and using 7 (seven)

dimensions, that are:

1. Population and demographics

It describes and differentiates the communities using specific parameters (e.g.,

the median income, the age distribution), which might be critical for

understanding its economics and health. This dimension can be measured using

a social vulnerability index (Barry, 2011) that describes the socioeconomic

status, the composition of the population (e.g., elderly and children), the

population density, the rural agriculture, the race, the gender, the ethnicity, the

infrastructure employment, and revenue.

2. Environment and ecosystem

This dimension measure the capability of the ecological system to go back to its

pre-event condition defined as its basic functionality. This dimension measures

15
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

the capability of an ecosystem to deal with disturbance, but also the amount of

disturbance an ecosystem can absorb without considerably varying its processes

and structures. This dimension can be measured using density comparation to

determine the variations of ecosystem productivity by comparing the values

before (t0) and after the event (tn), using Normalized Difference Vegetation

Index (NDVI) as a functionality-performance metric (Rouse, 1973).

3. Organized government services

This dimension includes legal and security services (e.g., police, emergency

departments, fire departments, the military) and also for example, the public

health, the hygiene departments, and the cultural heritage departments. Key

indicators for this dimension include the number of available response units and

their capacity if they are opportunely normalized with respect to the number of

residents involved. It can be measured using waiting time or response time (RT),

that analytically the given functionality-performance metric is: Qo = RT / RTo

where RT is response time in at the event and RTo is response time after event

(Cimellaro, 2011).

4. Physical infrastructure

This dimension includes facilities (e.g., housing, commercial and industrial

facilities, and cultural facilities) and lifelines (food supply, utilities,

transportation, communication networks) within a built environment, such as:

(1) energy utilities (e.g., power and natural gas networks); (2) transportation

systems (e.g., highways, railroads, airports, seaports); (3) water, stormwater, and

sewerage pipelines; (4)communication systems; and (5) health care facilities

16
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

(e.g., hospitals). Functionality of physical infrastructures has an important

impact on the restoration process. A general definition of functionality-

performance metric (QP) for this dimension, which applies to every type of

infrastructure, is given by: QP(t) = Σ η(t) / ηTOT where η(t) is number of

households without service at the event and ηTOT is total number of households

with service before the event (Cimellaro, 2014a, 2014b, 2015).

5. Lifestyle and community competence

This dimension deals with flexibility, creativity, and problem solving skills from

a community include collective actions and decision making, collective efficacy

and empowerment, include quality of life. Quality of life surveys can be used as

indicators of this perception because they reveal whether people inside the

community are devoted to their community and willing to engage in the activities

necessary to keep the community alive, before or after the event (Tierney 2009).

6. Economic development

The economic development dimension is the activity of the current economy of

a community that consists of three subcategories: (1) the production within the

industry, (2) the distribution of employment within the industry, and (3) the

financial services. This dimension is interdependent with the population and

demographics dimension. Analytically, functionality-performance metric for

this dimension is given by: QE = (per capita income + median household

income + employed population + median owner-occupied unit + business

establishment + insurance population) / 6 (Tierney 2009).

7. Social-cultural capital

17
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

The socio-cultural capital dimension can be measured using the following six

components of participation: (1) Participation in voluntary organizations

(volunteerism), this component was measured using registered non-profit

organizations; (2) Involvement in social groups (association densities), this the

involvement in social groups was measured using recreational centers; (3) Civil

and political participation, this social capital component was measured using

three indicators including registered voters, civic and political organizations, and

census response rates for the decennial population and housing survey; (4)

Religious participation, this was measured using religious organizations; (5)

Community attachment, this component was measured using owner-occupied

housing units; and (6) Connection to working places, this element was measured

using two indicators including professional organizations and business

organizations. Then a three step of procedure can be used to calculate the socio-

cultural capital dimension: (1) scale adjustment of indicators, (2) standardization

or normalization, and (3) creation of the socio-cultural community resilience

index (Mayunga 2009).

Environmental Performance Resilience Metric (PLANET)

Environmental performance related to business ecosystems on the physical

environment (Renschler, 2011). Business ecosystem are analogous with biological

ecosystems that uses biological metaphors (Moore, 1993), is:

“An economic community supported by a foundation of interacting

organizations and individuals, the organisms of the business world. This

18
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

economic community produces goods and services of value to customers,

who themselves are members of the ecosystem. The member organizations

also include suppliers, lead producers, competitors, and other

stakeholders. Over time, they coevolve their capabilities and roles, and

tend to align themselves with the directions set by one or more central

companies. Those companies holding leadership roles may change over

time, but the function of ecosystem leader is valued by the community

because it enables members to move toward shared visions to align their

investments and to find mutually supportive roles”.

This definition implies that each ecosystem can be characterized by a specific

value proposition and by a clearly defined group of actors as different roles

including suppliers, producers, competitors, distributors, government agencies, and

so on.

Similarly, Iansiti and Levien use congruencies between biological and business

ecosystems. They define business ecosystems through interconnected business

networks (Iansiti and Levien, 2004a), that is:

“These loose networks of suppliers, distributors, outsourcing firms,

makers of related products or services, technology providers, and a host

of other organizations that affect, and are affected by, the creation and

delivery of a company's own offerings”

Iansiti, Levien and Moore argue that the use of ecological metaphors is

effective in explaining the lack of boundaries in the complex networks traversing

industries and the need for a systematic vision of the business. Furthermore, Iansiti

19
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

and Levien (2004b) believe that a particularly powerful way to conceptualize

business networks, is to compare them to biological ecosystems. Like biological

ecosystems, business ecosystems are large loosely connected networks of entities

interacting each other in complex ways. Thus, the firms are simultaneously

influenced by their internal capabilities and by their complex interactions with the

ecosystem. Iansiti and Levien (2004b) extend the biological metaphors by stating

that there are critical ways in which the business ecosystems differ from the

biological counterparts: in innovation, in attracting customers and partners, and in

intelligent actors involving forethought planning.

Figure 7. Business Ecosystem Structure

Iansiti and Levien formulate the business ecosystem structure as a network seen

in Figure 4 with the following species that identified as node (Iansiti and Levien,

2004a, 2004b; Iansiti and Richards, 2006), are:

1. Keystones

Keystones actively improve and foster the overall health of the business

ecosystem, their own survival and benefits depend on the sustained

20
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

performance of the firms in the complex network. These species are critical for

the survival of the whole ecosystem and their loss can have dramatic cascading

effects (even indirect) through the entire ecosystem. Keystones can enhance

the health of the ecosystem in various by, for instance, limiting, removing

species that would reduce productivity, providing foundations on which other

species rely, maintaining stability of the ecosystem and creating diversity for

the ecosystem. Additionally, keystones create and share value together with

their network by leveraging their central hub position in the network.

2. Dominators

Dominators integrate vertically or horizontally and manage as well as control

a large part of the network. They are easily recognized and distinguished from

the keystones by two characteristics, they are actually bigger in size than

keystones and they discourage diversity by taking over the functions of the

species. The dominators that eliminate species, are responsible for the majority

of both value capture and value creation for themselves thus leaving little

opportunity for the emergence of a versatile ecosystem.

3. Hub Landlords

Hub landlords only create little value for the ecosystem and if it have low

physical presence and only occupy few network nodes. Instead, they extract as

much value as possible from the network without directly without controlling

it, leaving a starved and unstable ecosystem around it.

4. Niche Players

21
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

Niche creation is the ecosystem ability to create new, valuable functions and

foster diversity that creates value. Units of measurements are: (1) growth in

firm variety (the number of new firms created within the ecosystem community

in a certain period of time), and (2) growth in product and technical variety (for

instance, the number option of new product, block technological building, and

businesses being created within a certain time period).

According to Iansiti and Levien, an effective health aspects of the business

ecosystem measure using 3 (three) parameters (Iansiti and Levien, 2004b):

1. Productivity

Productivity describes how innovations and raw materials are converted into

products, using lowered costs and functions. Also, describes where investments

are most efficiently used. There are three productivity related units of

measurements: (1) factor productivity (ROIC = returns on invested capital), (2)

change in productivity over time (ROIC changes as a function of time), and (3)

delivery of innovations (time between the appearanced of a technology and its

distribution).

2. Robustness

Robustness is the ability to survive disruptions and unforeseen changes. A

robust ecosystem provides its members a buffer against external shocks and

provides some degree of predictability. Used units of measures are: (1) survival

rates (survival against recession, number of startup going out of business), (2)

persistence of structure (contained gradual changes in structure), (3)

22
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

predictability (core of the ecosystem that stays unaffected after experienced

shocks), (4) limited obsolescence (capacity and installed base in use after

experienced shocks), and (5) continuity of use (gradual evolvement of

consumer experience and their use cases, etc.).

3. Niche Creation

Niche creation is the ecosystem ability to create new, valuable functions and

foster diversity that creates value. Units of measurements are: (1) growth in

firm variety (the number of new firms created within the ecosystem community

in a certain period of time), and (2) growth in product and technical variety (for

instance, the number of new product options, technological building blocks,

products, businesses being created within a certain time period).

Researchers proposed using “SNA (Social Network Analysis)” framework to

identify a resilience metric framework related to environmental performance based

on business ecosystem structure (Jackson, 2008). Each node has 3 (three) metric

values: productifity, robustness, and niche creation. A productifity with 3 units

measurement, robustness with 5 units measurement, and niche creation with 2 units

measurement. According to Jackson, then using the Perron-Frobenius Theorem to

quantify node weighted average of his or her neighbors node, where the weights

correspond to weights from a social network. In that case, the resilience index that

represented as an eigenvector value with an eigenvalue of 1.

23
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

F. OVERALL RESUME

Business continuity management through business resilience (BCBR) method

consist of 3 (three) layers: Profit, People, and Planet, that represents Economic

Performance, Social Performance, and Environmental Performace. Each

performance layer using different metric method (CAMEL, PEOPLES, and SNA)

to quantify resilience which reflects the continuity capabilities of the organization,

shown by the spider diagram.

Figure 8. Business Continuity through Business Resilience (BCBR) Framework

24
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

Table 4. BCBR Measurement Metric

G. CONCLUTION

BCBR is one of measurement strategy for business continuity measurement

using resilience as an index of continuity capabilities of organization. The measure

methods including metric units maybe vary to any subyek of business area. The

combination of measure method and metric units is a challange for any researcher

to find the best fit for a specific business area. Still, BCBR is a novel framework

approach to measure organization continuity abilities using organization resilience

framework.

25
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

REFERENCES

Adger, W. N. (2000). "Social and Ecological Resilience: Are They Related?"

Progress in human geography, 24(3):347-364.

Ahsan, M.K. (2016). "Measuring Financial Performance Based on CAMEL A

Study on Selected Islamic Banks in Bangladesh" Asian Business Consortium,

47-56.

Allenby, B. and Fink, J. (2005). “Toward inherently secure and resilient societies”

Science, 309(5737):1034–1036.

BRCCI. (2008). "Business Resillience" Disaster Recovery Information Exchange

(DRIE), Toronto Chapter.

Baroud, H., Barker, K., Ramirez-Marquez, J.E. (2014). "Importance Measures for

Inland Waterway Network Resilience" Transportation research part E: logistics

and transportation review, 62:55-67.

Barry, E. F., Edward, W. G., Elaine, J. H., Janet, L. H., and Lewis, B.(2011). “A

social vulnerability index for disaster management” Journal of Homeland

Security Emergency Management, 8(1):3.

Bertrand, J.W.M. (2003). "Supply Chain Design: Flexibility Considerations"

Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, 11:133-198.

Blockley, D. I., Agarwal, J, and Godfrey, P. (2012). "Infrastructure Resilience for

High-Impact Low Chance Risks" ICE Proceedings Civil Engineering,

165(CE6):13-19.

26
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

Bruneau, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Lee, G. C., O’Rourke, T. D., Reinhorn,

A. M., and Von Winterfeldt, D. (2003). "A Framework to Quantitatively

Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience Of Communities" Earthquake

Spectra, 19(4):733-752.

Bueno, N. P. (2012). "Assessing the Resilience of Small Socio‐Ecological Systems

Based on the Dominant Polarity of Their Feedback Structure" System

Dynamics Review, 28(4):351-360.

Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M., and Bruneau, M. (2010a). “Framework for

analytical quantification of disaster resilience” Engineering Structure,

32(11):3639–3649.

Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M., and Bruneau, M. (2010b). “Seismic resilience

of a hospital system” Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 6(1–2):127–

144.

Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M., and Bruneau, M. (2011). “Performancebased

metamodel for health care facilities.” Earthquake Engineering Structure

Dynamics, 40(11):1197–1217.

Cimellaro, G. P., Scura, G., Renschler, C., Reinhorn, A. M., and Kim, H. (2014a).

“Rapid building damage assessment system using mobile phone technology”

Earthquake Engineering Vib., 13(3):519–533.

Cimellaro, G. P., Solari, D., and Bruneau, M. (2014b). “Physical infrastructure

Interdependency and regional resilience index after the 2011 Tohoku

earthquake in Japan” Earthquake Engineering Structure Dynamics,

43(12):1763–1784.

27
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

Cimellaro, G. P., Villa, O., and Bruneau, M. (2015). “Resilience-based design of

natural gas distribution networks” Journal of Infrastructure Systtem,

10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000204, 05014005.

Comfort, L. K. (1999). "Shared risk: Complex systems in seismic response"

Pergamon, New York.

Elkington, J. (1994). "Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win

Business Strategies for Sustainable Development" California Management

Review, 36(2):90–100.

Faturechi, R. and Miller-Hooks, E. (2014). "Measuring the Performance of

Transportation Infrastructure Systems in Disasters: A Comprehensive Review"

Journal of infrastructure systems, 21(1):14-25.

Fiksel, J. (2003). “Designing resilient, sustainable systems” Environment Science

Technology, 37(23):5330–5339.

Gay, L.F. and Sinha, S.K. (2013). "Resilience of Civil Infrastructure Systems:

Literature Review for Improved Asset Management" International Journal of

Critical Infrastructures, 9(4):330-350.

Giordano, R., Pagano, A., Pluchinotta, at al. (2017). “Modelling the complexity of

the network of interactions in flood emergency management: the Lorca flash

flood case” Environmental Modelling & Software, 95:180–195.

Godschalk, D.R. (2003). "Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities"

Natural Hazards Review, 4(3):136-143.

Gunderson, L. H., Holling, C. S., Pritchard, J., and Peterson, G. D. (2002).

"Resilience of large-scale resource systems" Island Press, Washington, DC.

28
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

Haimes, Y. Y. (2009). “On the definition of resilience in systems” Risk Analysis,

29(4):498–501.

Haimes, Y. Y., Matalas, N. C., Lambert, J. H., Jackson, B. A., and Fellows, J. F. R.

(1998). “Reducing vulnerability of water supply systems to attack” Journal of

Infrastructure System, 10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(1998)4:4(164):164–177.

Hammer, J. and Pivo, G. (2016). "The Triple Bottom Line and Sustainable

Economic Development Theory and Practice" Economic Development

Quaterly, 31(1):25–36.

Hazzi, O.A. & Kilani, M.I.A. (2013). "The Financial Performance Analysis of

Islamic and Traditional Banks: Evidence from Malaysia" European Journal of

Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, Issue:57, February 2013,

ISSN: 1450-2275.

Hiles, Andrew (2007). "The Definitive Handbook of Business Continuity

Management, Second Edition" John Wiley & Sons, England.

Holling, C. S. (1973). “Resilience and stability of ecological systems” Annual

Revenue Ecology System, 4(1):1–23.

Hollnagel, E. (2006). "Resilience—The challenge of the unstable, 1st Ed." Ashgate,

Aldershot, U.K., 397.

Holmgren, A. (2007). "A framework for vulnerability assessment of electric power

systems" Springer, Berlin.

Horne, J. F. and Orr, J. E. (1998). “Assessing behaviors that create resilient

organizations” Employment Relation Today, 24(4):29–39.

29
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

Huegen, Craig. (2007). "Business Management Case Study: How Cisco IT Uses Its

Own IT Technologies to Achieve Business Resilience" Cisco Systems Inc., San

Jose, US.

Iansiti, Marco and Levien, Roy (2004a). "Creating Value in Your Business

Ecosystem" Harvard Business Review, March.

Iansiti, Marco and Levien, Roy (2004b). "The Keystone Advantage: What the New

Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and

Sustainability" Harward Business School Press, MA ISBN 1-59139-307-8.

Iansiti, Marco, and Richards, Gregory L. (2006). "The Information Technology

Ecosystem: Structure, health and performance" The Antitrust Bulleting,

Spring.

Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B. and Dolgui, A. (2014). "The Ripple Effect in Supply

Chains: Trade-Off ‘EfficiencyFlexibility-Resilience’in Disruption

Management" International Journal of Production Research, 52(7):2154-2172.

Jackson, M.O. (2008). "Social and Economic Networks volume 3" Princeton

university press, Princeton.

Jamie, W. and Janet, W. (2014). "Disaster Recovery, Crisis Response, and Business

Continuity: A Management Desk Reference" Apress Publishers, New York.

Jin, J.G., Tang, L.C., Sun, L. and Lee, D.H. (2014). "Enhancing Metro Network

Resilience via Localized Integration with Bus Services" Transportation

Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 63:17-30.

30
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

Klibi, W., Martel, A. and Guitouni, A. (2010). "The Design of Robust Value-

Creating Supply Chain Networks: A Critical Review" European Journal of

Operational Research, 203(2):283-293.

Labaka, L., Hernantes, J. and Sarriegi, J. M. (2015). “Resilience framework for

critical infrastructures: an empirical study in a nuclear plant” Reliability

Engineering & System Safety, 141:92–105.

Liao, T. Y., Hu, T. Y., and Ko, Y. N. (2018). "A Resilience Optimization Model

for Transportation Networks under Disasters" Natural Hazards, 1-21.

Manyena, S. B. (2006). “The concept of resilience revisited” Disasters, 30(4):434–

450.

Mayunga, J. S. (2009). “Measuring the measure: A multi-dimensional scale model

to measure community disaster resilience in the U.S. Gulf Coast region” Ph.D.

dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

McDaniels, T., Chang, S., Cole, D., Mikawoz, J., and Longstaff, H. (2008).

"Fostering Resilience to Extreme Events within Infrastructure Systems:

Characterizing Decision Contexts for Mitigation and Adaptation" Global

Environmental Change, 18(2):310-318.

Merchant, I. P. (2012). "Empirical study of islamic banks versus conventional

banks of GCC" Global Journal of Management and Business Research,

12(20):33-42.

MetricStream. (2021). https://www.metricstream.com/insights/BCM-pathway-

organizational-resilience.htm. Accessed on April, 11th, 2021.

31
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

Mileti, D. (1999). "Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the

United States" Joseph Henry Press, Washington DC.

Moore, J.F. (1993). "Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition" Harvard

Business Review, 71(3):75–83.

Moore, J.F. (1996). "The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age

of Business Ecosystems" HarperCollins Publishers.

Murray and Tuite. (2006), "A Comparison of Transportation Network Resilience

under Simulated System Optimum and User Equilibrium Conditions" IEEE, In

Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference, 1398-1405.

Norman, W. and Macdonald, C. (2004). "Getting to the Bottom of Triple Bottom

Line” Business Ethics Quaterly, 14(2):243–262.

Pagano, A., Pluchinotta, I., Giordano, R., Fratino, U. (2018). "Integrating Hard and

Soft Infrastructural Resilience Assessment for Water Distribution Systems"

Hindawi, Volume 2018, Article ID 3074791.

Panteli, M. and Mancarella, P. (2017). "Modeling and Evaluating the Resilience of

Critical Electrical Power Infrastructure to Extreme Weather Events" IEEE

Systems Journal, 11(3):1733-1742.

Piyu, Y. (1992). "Data Envelopment Analysis & Commercial Bank Performance:

A Primer with Application to Missouri Banks" Austin: IC2 Institute, University

of Texas.

Reed, D.A., Kapur, K.C. and Christie, R.D. (2009). "Methodology for Assessing

the Resilience of Networked Infrastructure" IEEE Systems Journal, 3(2):174-

180.

32
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

Reggiani, A. (2013). "Network Resilience for Transport Security: Some

Methodological Considerations" Transport Policy, 28:63-68.

Renschler, C., Frazier, A., Arendt, L., Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M., and

Bruneau, M. (2010). “Framework for defining and measuring resilience at the

community scale: The PEOPLES resilience framework” MCEER Technical

Rep.–MCEER-10-006, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York.

Renschler, C., Reinhorn, A. M., Arendt, L., and Cimellaro, G. P. (2011). “The

PEOPLES resilience framework: A conceptual approach to quantify

community resilience” 3rd International Conference on Computational

Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (COMPDYN

2011), European Community on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences

(ECCOMAS), Corfu, Greece.

Rose, A. and Liao, S. Y. (2005). “Modeling regional economic resilience to

disasters: A computable general equilibrium analysis of water service

disruptions” Journal Regional Science, 45(1):75–112.

Rouse, J. W., Haas, R. H., Schell, J. A., and Deering, D. W. (1973). “Monitoring

vegetation systems in the great plains with ERTS” 3rd ERTS Symposium

NASA SP-351 I, 309–317.

Tierney, K. (2009). “Disaster response: Research findings and their implications for

resilience measures” CARRI Research Reports 6, Community & Regional

Resilience Institute, Boulder, CO.

Tierney, K. and Bruneau, M. (2007). “Conceptualizing and measuring resilience: a

key to disaster loss reduction” Transportation Research Board, 250(1):14–18.

33
 Business Continuity Management through Business Resilience Framework

US DHS (U.S. Department of Homeland Security). (2008). “DHS risk lexicon, risk

steering committee” Washington, DC.

Vong, A., & Chan, H. (2009) “Determinants of Bank Profitability in Macau”,

Macau Monetary Research Bulletin, 12:93-113.

Vugrin, E. D., Warren, D. E., Ehlen, M. A., and Camphouse, R. C. (2010). "A

framework for assessing the resilience of infrastructure and economic systems"

Springer, Berlin.

Wildavsky, A. B. (1991). "Searching for safety" Oxford Transaction Publisher, NB,

Canada.

Wong, Wei Ning and Shi, Jianping. (2015). "Business Continuity Management

System: A Complete Guide to Implementing ISO 22301" Kogan Page Limited,

England.

Woods, D. D. (2006). “Essential characteristics of resilience” Resilience

engineering: Concepts and precepts, Ashgate, Aldershot, U.K.

34