Indicators to assess organizational resilience – a review of empirical literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to explore the empirical literature on organizational resilience. The goal consists of identifying and understanding the indicators used to evaluate organizational resilience and instigating the development of indicators to assess resilience in other areas, such as project management and critical infrastructure. Design/methodology/approach A review of recent empirical studies is conducted to collect information on the indicators used to assess organizational resilience. Findings A range of interrelated indicators aiming to measure organizational resilience in two dimensions is shown in this literature review: awareness and adaptive capacity. Awareness is the ability of an organization to assess its environment and interpret the changes in its surroundings, both now and in the future, to be proactive and better manage possible disruptive events. On the other hand, adaptive capacity is the organization’s capacity to transform its structure, processes, culture, etc. for recovering once faced with a disruptive event. Awareness forms the main base of the organization’s adaptive capacity. Originality/value Organizational resilience contributes to the safe development of the built environment. This concept helps organizations to cope with disruptions. However, little research has been conducted on the indicators to assess organizational resilience, in different fields. Moreover, these indicators’ credibility is based on empirical studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".