ABSTRACT
This part conclusion presents some closing thoughts on the key concepts discussed in the preceding chapters. The part discusses the meaning of a construct for organisational resilience predicated on risk and therefore laying bare their co-dependency. It begins to unpack the definitional debate around organisational resilience and its implications for reasoning design. Resilience, just like risk, can be seen to be surrounded by a dense cloud of possible definitions. The part suggests that the resilience definition used has to pass those same four key tests that objectify risk. Given their expedient design, abstract metrics and desire for scientific face-validity, the crop of risk-based resilience constructs, in the hands of ordinary managers, will simply produce poor reasoning. The type of systems that are in vogue for hard-pressed organisations to measure and manage their risk and resilience outcomes seem to rest upon a house of cards argument.
