Is your back-up IT infrastructure in a safe location? A multi-criteria approach to location analysis for business continuity facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building redundant capacity into an organization’s information technology (IT) infrastructure is a standard part of business continuity planning (BCP). Traditionally, cost concerns have dominated the decision of where to locate the redundant facilities. However; recently managers are becoming more aware of the fact that the very issues that make the main IT facilities vulnerable to disruption (i.e. man-made or natural disasters) are likely to impact the redundant (back-up facilities as well. This complicates the process of selecting redundant facility location(s). The problem is essentially a multi-criteria decision problem, and can be addressed using the location analysis techniques that have been used in other domains in the past. Meanwhile, what make this context somewhat unique are the decision criteria and the rather subjective nature of the decision process. This paper provides a simple decision model for the problem, and illustrates the model with a case where relevant decision criteria are identified and the solution is obtained using a mix of objective and subjective decision techniques. We believe the paper is valuable because it presents an actionable methodology for practitioners involved in BCP.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".