Abstract
AbstractThis paper presents an adaptation of the Resilience Analysis Grid (RAG) method framed on the Resilience Engineering theory as a proposal for tackling the lack of organisational resilience metrics in the water sector of England and Wales. The method was adapted to the sector by selecting 16 indicators and the addition of a ‘Resilience Ethos’ section to the grid. Its applicability was tested by analysing the evolution of resilience in Ofwat’s Price Reviews 2009 (PR09), 2014 (PR14) and 2019 (PR19). Key conclusions obtained were that: (I) PR14 acts as a pivot between PR09 and PR19, as it installs a new regulatory approach; (II) the sector has advanced significantly towards greater consideration of resilience and its management in PR19; and (III) the PRs lack instruments for in‐period performance assessment. The RAG method proved to be simple and flexible to use, delivering clear and straightforward graphical results.
Highlights
The impact and importance of the concept of resilience have increased over the past few years, in the face of threats of climate change, increasing urbanisation and growing population (Butler et al 2014)
Price Reviews 2009 (PR09) does not have a clear definition of resilience, and the references to the term found in the final methodologies are mainly focused on infrastructure and asset resilience to flooding hazards
The application of the Resilience Analysis Grid (RAG) method to the water sector in England and Wales, by evaluating the PR09, PR14 and PR19, has demonstrated its applicability to this industry. This systematic approach has enabled an understanding of the evolution of the resilience concept and its operationalisation in the Price Review (PR), and the evolution of resilience in the sector in general
Summary
The impact and importance of the concept of resilience have increased over the past few years, in the face of threats of climate change, increasing urbanisation and growing population (Butler et al 2014). The three PRs require companies to build their response ability on the different plans, but the instruments used were not aimed at creating valid responses to threats and opportunities in the sector. PR19 is more emphatic about the importance of the responses and contingency plans, and in the evaluation of the business plans, there are specific questions devoted to their assessment. While this shows an enhancement of this ability, there is still a lack of a systematic framework that allows in-period upgrading and evaluation of these responses
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
