Measuring Resilience in AT systems and services
Initial approaches and considerations
In the first part of the series I considered how the impact of the Covid19 pandemic might provide the basis for an approach to resilience testing of AT systems, https://aaate.net/2020/08/13/understanding-and-responding-to-the-stress-and-impact-of-covid19-upon-assistive-technology-services-by-david-banes/
In this introduction I suggested that we can investigate resilience in our models of service delivery by considering four key components described as:
Resistance — the ability to withstand possible hazards
Absorbance — the capacity of the system to limit the damage incurred during an event
Recovery — the ability for the system to return to its original state following an event
Adaptation — the system’s ability to change to maintain its function in a new environment
Based on this model or framework it is possible to begin to suggest metrics by which judgements about the impact of the pandemic can be made. Such metrics can be used to make similar judgements about the impact further potential crises in the future.
Whilst there are similarities to risk assessment, resilience analysis can be distinguished from risk assessment in several ways. Francis and Bekera (2014) suggest that conventional risk assessment methods are used to determine the negative consequences of potential events, and then to mitigate any undesirable outcomes. Whilst risk is associated with the uncertainty about and severity of the consequences of a disruptive activity, resilience is an inherent property of a system constructed to accommodate disruptive events.
They suggest that the resilience approach emphasizes an assessment of ability to
· anticipate absorb potential disruptions
· develop adaptive means to accommodate changes within or around the system
· establish response behaviours aimed at either building the capacity to withstand the disruption or recover as quickly as possible after an impact.
The purpose of the metrics is to help us identify questions we should ask in examining resilience and what form we need responses to be abd in seeking to test the resilience of AT systems we can outline questions and measures within each of the four components suggested above.
1 Resistance
Resistance is one of the first concepts to consider when considering resilience. It refers to the capacity of the system or service to remain unchanged when exposed to disturbance and disruption. Services that are resistant can maintain “business as usual” despite the stress and pressure they are exposed to.
In effect our measure of resistance is to be able to suggest that “no change was required” in maintaining services during a period of disruption.
In many systems that underpin services there is a user journey that is required to gain full access to the services. A useful technique at this stage is to have documented the “user journey” required to access services and to consider which if any steps resisted any need for change, and which required or will require mitigations.
That user journey can be considered both in terms of the actual process of engaging with the service, but also in terms of the ecosystem supporting effective implementation of assistive and accessible technologies.
Such an ecosystem for implementation would ask us to consider each key area and to consider whether business as usual has been sufficient to maintain access to services for both new and existing clients.
That ecosystem might include
Awareness
Evaluation of needs of user
Provision of solutions to end user
Training for stakeholders
Technical and post provision support
Access to necessary content
Development
Coordination
The greater the number of ecosystem elements that require change to be sustained the less resistant they are.
2 Absorption
Vugrin et al (2010) define absorption as the degree to which a system can absorb the impacts of disruption of crisis and minimize consequences with little effort. In AT services it is likely to be a management feature and based upon operational procedures. The capacity to absorb sudden pain points to the system will reflect the robustness and reliability of that system [14].
Capacity to absorb is achieved through offering planned mitigation to adverse events. These might include.
Implementation of alternate channels to reach suppliers and clients
Diversity of channels to engage with stakeholders
Variations in models of distribution of assistive technologies
Multiple channels to achieve a desired outcome
Utilising effective technology platforms to deliver services
Robust and open referral processes
Strong and trusted relationships
Services can consider their capacity to absorb such impact by considering the extent to which their service offerings incorporate such mitigations.
3 Recovery
Recovery refers to the capacity and capability of a system to rapidity return to normal or improved operations and services. This is assessed against a set of requirements based upon a desired service levels. Many AT services have defined quality standards for delivery of services to customers and clients. Recovery measurement will use pre-crisis targets and achievements as the baseline against which to gauge the impact of a crisis and how rapidly services can achieve desired levels. Service standards for delivery might include:
· Time taken to return to business as usual
· Waiting times
· Customer Satisfaction
· Costs
· Impact on employee retention and productivity
Recovery suggests not that we are returning to delivering services in the same way and to the same standard as previously. It may achieve standards through entirely new processes which then become the basis of a more resilient model going forward.
4 Adaptation
If Absorption addresses the capacity of the system to absorb the impact of disruption, then adaptive capacity refers to the ability of a system to adjust to those situations by undertaking change. Adaptive capacity refers to the ability to adopt change in response to adversity and may be applied where current capacity to absorb has been exceeded. Services that are characterised by adaptive capacity are enhanced by an ability to anticipate, recognise, and re-organise around disruptions ansd demonstrate preparedness for such events.
Above all services that have capacity for adaptation have both planned and are resourced to respond to disruption. Hence healthy and resilient services will have established
· Documented mitigation processes.
· Clear criteria to initiate mitigation with access to necessary resources
· Training for team members in the adaptive strategies
· Both stability of service aims and flexibility of approaches
Summary
Covid represents the most human of disruptions possible to services, in which the risk of personal contact to threaten all participants engaging together is very great. The potential that the interaction is toxic to one or other participant placing them at risk has significantly disrupted many of our approaches to meeting the needs of people with a disability. However, experience of the last decade has demonstrated that whilst we may not have been able to anticipate the pandemic, we could recognise both mounting stress upon services, and potential factors that would exceed the capacity of service systems to cope.
Whilst we have mounting evidence of ways to mitigate the impact of the pandemic, we need to begin to build systems that are more resilient to a wide range of potential disruptions, and consider how resistance, absorption, recovery and adaptation are fully integrated into service delivery planning. Case studies of evolving practice that examine mitigations and responses through this lens will offer valuable lessons to others as we plan for an uncertain and often chaotic future.
References
R. Francis and B. Bekera. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 121 (2014) 90–10391)
Vugrin, E. D., Warren, D. E., Ehlen, M. A., & Camphouse, R. C. (2010). A framework for assessing the resilience of infrastructure and economic systems. In Sustainable and resilient critical infrastructure systems (pp. 77–116). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
