Resumen:
|
The study of resilience in the emergency management field is nowadays in effervescence. Traditionally, the
robustness of organizations against disasters is based on several pillars: equipment, staff training, organization
and, ...[+]
The study of resilience in the emergency management field is nowadays in effervescence. Traditionally, the
robustness of organizations against disasters is based on several pillars: equipment, staff training, organization
and, especially, planning. All of these dimensions are aimed at increasing the preparedness and recovery of
organizations against disasters. While the approaches to resilience in emergency management focus on the
processes that implement these dimensions, we approach resilience-building processes from a different
perspective: instead of focusing on planning-related activities, we pay attention to the principal outcome of
such activities, namely emergency plan.
We show how the management of the emergency plan can contribute to reinforcing an organization's resilience.
First, we identify the major resilience-related emergency plan components and suggest improved emergency
plans that consider the characteristics that contribute to resilience. Secondly, we show how to reinforce the
resilience of the organizations that have emergency plans. Our study is based on QuEP, a quality-based
framework for the assessment and improvement of emergency plan management within organizations.
We have extended and integrated the resilience characteristics as practices of the QuEP's maturity level
hierarchy to make up QuEP + R. We describe its resilience model and give details of a supporting tool, currently
under development.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
[-]
|
Descripción:
|
This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Technological Forecasting & Social Change. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Technological Forecasting & Social Change 121 (2017) 17–30. DOI 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.004.
|