Business continuity management: trends, structures and future issues
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study assesses the current landscape of business continuity management (BCM) research while exploring research trends, structures and delineating potential future directions. Design/methodology/approach A comprehensive bibliometric analysis was conducted on 360 articles from the Scopus and Web of Science databases using Biblioshiny software. A meta-synthesis was employed to aggregate and synthesize findings from the bibliometric results. Findings The results demonstrate a notable increase in publication numbers since the onset of the pandemic, reaching a peak in 2022 with a total of 342 articles. A collaborative bond among scholars transcends geographical boundaries and national affiliations. The analytical results propose avenues for future research, addressing crucial areas such as the integration of business continuity management systems (BCMS), the development of BCM frameworks and a comparative analysis of business impact analysis (BIA) frameworks through pertinent theories. Research limitations/implications The study contributes theoretical and practical implications, serving as a valuable resource for academics and practitioners seeking to deepen their understanding of BCM’s role in business recovery and preserving organizational continuity in the face of disruptions. Originality/value This study pioneers a comprehensive approach by integrating bibliometric analysis and qualitative meta-synthesis, providing a consolidated overview of BCM research. Additionally, it presents future research proposals in this area.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it