_old_pages‎ > ‎

English

Resilience Research Groups of Japan

 

 

1. Overview


This council is a coalition of research groups in academic-industrial collaboration which aims to establish an evaluation method of resilience. Through field survey, international cooperation, and construction of simulation models, it aims to develop an evaluation method of resiliency of local communities and organizations in a comprehensive and objective approach, and to deliver recommendation, support, and dissemination to organizations both internationally and domestically for their acknowledgement and resolution of practical issues which may emerge during their evaluation of resilience.



2. Background of research and definition of problems


Various disasters, accidents, and incidents along with the consequential damages by them have developed a common understanding that the improvement of resilience of organizations (corporate, government and non-profit) and local communities (municipalities) is an important societal issue. ISO is working for establishment of international standards to improve response and resilience to disasters, accidents, and incidents in Technical Committee TC223 (Societal Security). Japanese government is also trying to help the national organizations improve their resilience through the provision of guidelines such as "Business Continuity Guidelines, the first edition - to improve disaster mitigation and disaster response of companies in Japan" by Cabinet Office and "Business Continuity Plan (BCP) Formulation Guidelines - for companies to survive in the advanced IT society" by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

However any methods have not been developed to comprehensively evaluate the resilience levels of local communities and organizations while we can utilize some evaluation indices of the individual elements which affect the resilience of local communities and organizations such as past histories of earthquake and flooding, seismic adequacy and flame resistance of buildings and facilities of organizations, and recovery performance and backup system of IT systems.

Also it is difficult at present to evaluate the potential resilience of local community and organization before a disaster, accident or incident occurs while it is possible to assess the extent to which their resilience was after the disaster occurred. The business continuity management system standards which ISO has been studying are intended to evaluate the mechanism (management system) to improve the resilience of organizations but they are not intended to evaluate the resilience itself, and the direction and level of improvement are supposed to be allowed for each organization to decide independently. However, any comprehensive and rational approach for direction has not been presented despite the nature that the direction of improvement needs to be defined in interactions with local communities and organizations and with fire prevention, crime prevention, and disaster countermeasure. As for the level of the improvement, in addition, organizations need to rely on analogy from the data of insurance companies or on the experience of top management because there is no practical measurement method. Again, any comprehensive and rational direction has not been presented.


3. Anticipated results


This council aims to present a rational approach to measure the level and direction of the improvement, and to contribute to improving the resilience of the domestic and international organizations. This will contribute to rational understandings of the current resilience situation of local communities and organizations and to presenting of the direction and target level of improvement with a simulation model. This will make cost comparisons easier.



4. Council organization


This council consists of the following research groups:

 

A. Toyohashi University of Technology Resilience Research Group
(official name: Resilience Research Group, Masuda Laboratory, Toyohashi University of Technology)
B. JTTAS Resilience Research Group
(official name: Resilience Research Group, Japan Technology Transfer Association)

 

The Toyohashi University of Technology Resilience Research group is mainly responsible to basic policy, basic frame, domestic and international data collection, domestic and international conference presentation, literature survey, construction of simulation models, and utilization of GIS. The JTTAS group is mainly responsible to research and analysis work with individual subjects of resilience, survey and research of practical issues, dissemination to the general public, various proposals, and application study of research results.

 

Note:

Risk Management Association may set up a resilience research group inside the association. If it is set up, it would become another member of this council.



5. Operation of council


The elected representative and a few facilitators from the both groups operate the council. The groups decide about the operation cost after mutual consultation.



6. Regular meetings


A regular meeting of this council is to hold twice a year in Tokyo. In addition, as necessary, ad hoc meetings and workshops for dissemination are to hold.


 


Establishing a Resilience Evaluation Method (draft)

 

 

1. Target level of evaluation method (draft)



In particular, the council aims development of an evaluation method which meets the following requirements:

(1) Able to comprehensively present a comparative evaluation of resilience of several communities

(2) Able to comprehensively present a comparative evaluation of resilience of a local community over time

(3) Able to comprehensively present a comparative evaluation of resilience of several organizations

(4) Able to comprehensively present a comparative evaluation of resilience of an organization over time

 


2. Basic concept of evaluation method


To evaluate the level of the resilience of an organization, it is necessary to evaluate and aggregate the resilience of each site of the organization. The resilience of each site strongly depends on the resilience of the local community. Therefore, it is necessary first to evaluate the resilience of the community and the council will work on it at the beginning.

For example, a site located in a local community where the social infrastructures including electricity, gas, water, roads, telecommunications, medical, police, and fire control have been consolidated can be evaluated as "Moderate Resilience" in total even if the resilience of the site itself is not high. In contrast, a site located in a local community where the social infrastructures has not yet consolidated with low resilience cannot be evaluated as "Moderate Resilience" in total unless the resilience of the site is quite high.

Next, as for the direction of the resilience of the organization, high seismic adequacy is not necessary for regions where earthquake is not concerned, and high crime prevention is necessary for regions where crime rate is high. The council calls it the direction of the resilience improvement. This direction changes by region and by time. Here, the council will provide each risk with a model to build a conversion table by region and time.



2.1 Evaluating local community resilience


First, we are to calculate conversion values of frequency by checking the disasters, accidents, and incidents which have occurred in the region over a period of past time and organizing them. Note that this period can be quite long for natural disasters like eruption as the year tens of thousands and short for crimes as 20 years or so.

Following the calculation of conversion values, we are to investigate and evaluate the following items for specific areas in municipalities such as certain industrial areas and commercial areas.

 

(1) Resilience of local community - strengths of continuity and recovery of related infrastructures:

Electricity, gas, water, sewerage, telecommunications, roads, railways, finance, medical, administrative and other

 

(2) Disasters, accidents, and incidents to be investigated:

Fires, safety accidents, earthquakes, flooding, wind damage, snow damage, infection, volcanoes, ICT accidents, drought, crime, and other

 

(3) Evaluation method will be the matrix below:

 

 

Fire

Safety Accidents

Earthquakes

Basic values

Conversion Values

 

Basic values

Conversion Values

 

Basic values

Conversion Values

 

1

1

1

1.2

1

0.5

Electricity

A

 

 

 

 

 

Gas

 

 

B

 

 

 

Water

 

 

 

 

C

 

Sewerage

 

 

 

 

 

 

Telecommunications

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roads

 

 

 

 

 

 

Railways

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finance

 

 

 

 

 

 

Medical

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The item "A" at the intersection of fire and electricity, the item "B" at the intersection of safety accidents and gas, and the item "C" at the intersection of earthquake and water, for example, are evaluated as follows:

 

[Electricity and fire]

10: be safely supplied in any cases of fire

9: might be disrupted for about two hours in cases of large fire

····

2: might be disrupted for 1 to 2 weeks even in cases small fire

1: might be disrupted for 3 weeks or more even in cases of small fire

 

[Gas and safety accidents]

10: be safely supplied in any cases of safety accidents

9: might be disrupted for about two hours in cases of large safety accidents

····

2: might be disrupted for 3 to 4 weeks even in cases small safety accidents

1: might be disrupted for 4 weeks or more even in cases of small safety accidents

 

[Water and earthquake]

10: be safely supplied in case of level 7 quake

9: might be disrupted for about a day in case of level upper 6 quake

····

2: might be disrupted for about 1 to 2 weeks in case of level 3 quake

1: might be disrupted for 3 weeks or more in case of level 3 quake

 


 

2.2 Evaluating organizational resilience


To evaluate the resilience of an organization, the individual resilience of each site of the organization should be evaluated and then the results should be totally evaluated. In the total evaluation, weighting (prioritizing) to each site and resilience evaluation of each local community where each site is located are needed.

 

(1) Weighting method to each site will be the matrix below:

 

Items

 

Sites

Number of employees

Tangible goods

Intangible goods

IT

Other

Sum of conversion value

Weights

X1

Y1

X2

Y2

X3

Y3

X4

Y4

X5

Y5

Head Office

5

9

4

6.4

5

6

4

6

5

5

32.4

14.31

Sapporo Branch

2

3.6

2

3.2

1

1.2

2

3

2

2

13.0

5.74

Tokyo Branch

3

5.4

3

4.8

1

1.2

1

1.5

1

1

14.9

6.58

Osaka Branch

3

5.4

2

3.2

1

1.2

1

1.5

2

2

13.3

5.87

Fukuoka Branch

3

5.4

2

3.2

1

1.2

5

7.5

1

1

18.3

8.08

Central Institute

3

5.4

4

6.4

5

6

3

4.5

2

2

24.3

10.73

Kanto Plant

3

5.4

5

8

3

3.6

3

4.5

3

3

24.5

10.82

Niigata Plant

4

7.2

4

6.4

4

4.8

4

6

5

5

29.4

12.99

Kyushu Plant

5

9

5

8

4

4.8

4

6

5

5

32.8

14.49

Tokyo Call Center

3

5.4

4

6.4

1

1.2

5

7.5

3

3

23.5

10.38

Sum of Conversion value

 

1.8

 

1.6

 

1.2

 

1.5

 

1.0

226.4

100.00

Note 1: Only a portion of the items are shown

Note 2: Greater numbers are higher priorities when compared

Note 3: Figures X show rank numbers in comparison and figures Y show the converted values

Note 4: "Conversion values" are for expedient comparison and prioritization between each element which differs markedly to each other in nature and are variable depending on company and top management

 

(2) Management resources to evaluate the resilience of organizations will be the followings:

·           Human: Employees, managements, relevant persons, and etc.

·           Tangible goods: materials, production facilities, products, buildings, environment surrounding, and etc.

·           Intangible goods: intellectual property, know-how, brand, competitive advantages, work ethic, and etc.

·           Money: sales opportunities, credit accounts collection, rent, equipment rental, and etc.

·           General information: shareholder relations, employee relations, community relations, and etc.

·           ICT: data, server, network, and etc.

·           Infrastructure: electricity, water, gas, telecommunications, government, medical, logistics, and etc.

 

(3) Disaster, accidents, and incidents to survey will be the followings:

Fires, safety accidents, earthquakes, flooding, wind damage, snow damage, infection, volcanoes, ICT accidents, drought, crime, and etc.

 

(4) Evaluation method will be the following matrix:

The evaluation method of the intersections of management resources and disaster/accidents/incidents conforms to the evaluation method of local communities.

 


Fire

Accidents

Earthquakes

Basic values

Conversion value

Basic values

Conversion value

Basic values

Conversion value

1

1

1

1.2

1

0.5

Human Relations

Top managements

 

 

 

 

 

 

Managements

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employees

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relevants

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tangible goods

Materials

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parts

 

 

 

 

 

 

Production Facilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

Buildings

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environment

 

 

 

 

 

 

Products

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

3. Utilizing the evaluation method


The evaluation method, which is developed as a result of this study, of the organization's resiliency is expected to be utilized in the following situations:

 

(1) Evaluation of the resilience of the other organizations

When choosing business partners, companies generally would want to deal with companies of higher resilience, if the other conditions are same. A typical example is the case a finished-product manufacturer selects material manufacturers and parts manufacturers.

If the organization to be evaluated (in the example above material or parts manufacturers) has already got an evaluation by external agency, the organization to evaluate (in the example above finished product manufacturer) just has to use the evaluation results. Otherwise, the organization to evaluate can also evaluate other organizations by themselves.

 

(2) Evaluation of self-organization

By comparing with the results of past evaluations, organizations can see their improvement (or decline) of the resilience of itself. If an organization implemented some measures to improve resilience, it can verify the cost-performance of measures by comparing the evaluation results before and after the measures. Also organizations can predict the cost-performance of a measure to some extent by evaluating the resilience after simulating its anticipated effect in the studying stage of the measure.

 

(3) Benchmarking

After more organizations have been evaluated in this method, and the results have been publicly available, it enables to benchmark the resiliency of an organization. It will become possible to know the position of an (your) organization in the same industry, in the same-sized organizations, in the neighborhood organizations.

 

(4) Comparison of locational conditions

When a organization considers the establishment of a new site and if it wants more resilience for the site, this method enables it to select a candidate location with a higher resilience based on the evaluation results. Conversely, municipalities and industrial parks, for example, to attract companies can appeal the evaluation results after improved the resilience of the region and were evaluated by external agency. Also, office buildings business can expect a priming effect at the time of tenant recruitment if it have an evaluation results of the resilience of its individual building.

 

 Contact: info@resilience-japan.org