IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v282y2020i2p627-643.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organizational vulnerability of digital threats: A first validation of an assessment method

Author

Listed:
  • Scholz, Roland W.
  • Czichos, Reiner
  • Parycek, Peter
  • Lampoltshammer, Thomas J.

Abstract

We present a Strengths, Vulnerability, and Intervention Assessment related to Digital Threats (SVIDT) method, which provides a problem structuring and decision support for organizational vulnerability and resilience management with respect to changes of the digital transition. The method starts from (i) a multi-level actor analysis, (ii) identifies strengths and weaknesses of organizations, (iii) constructs digital threat scenarios and provides judgment-based expert assessments on the organization's vulnerability, (iv) develops intervention scenarios for tangible threat scenarios, and (v) suggests win-win action scenarios when referring to the multi actor system analysis as for strategic management. A first validation and application includes a structural analysis of the response patterns and a quantitative and qualitative appraisal of the organizations’ managers. This validation is based on an application of the method to 18 German and Austrian organizations of different types and magnitude. We show how the basic concepts of vulnerability (i.e., sensitivity, exposure adaptive capacity) can be quantitatively operationalized when constructing consistent combinations of threat and intervention scenarios. The validation approaches indicate that the method provides meaningful data and assessments and that the managers provided a positive feedback on the method and the recommendations which they received. It is further deliberated whether the assessment method supports organizations’ specified resilience management in an overly complex, systemic digital transition in a (semi) quantitative manner. In addition, we discuss needs for future research regarding practical utility of SVIDT, as well as the positioning of SVIDT in relation to soft operational methods and other methods of operational research.

Suggested Citation

  • Scholz, Roland W. & Czichos, Reiner & Parycek, Peter & Lampoltshammer, Thomas J., 2020. "Organizational vulnerability of digital threats: A first validation of an assessment method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(2), pages 627-643.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:282:y:2020:i:2:p:627-643
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2019.09.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037722171930760X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.09.020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bier, Vicki & Gutfraind, Alexander, 2019. "Risk analysis beyond vulnerability and resilience – characterizing the defensibility of critical systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 626-636.
    2. Tietje, Olaf, 2005. "Identification of a small reliable and efficient set of consistent scenarios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(2), pages 418-432, April.
    3. Baudry, Gino & Macharis, Cathy & Vallée, Thomas, 2018. "Range-based Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis: A combined method of Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis and Monte Carlo simulation to support participatory decision making under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 257-269.
    4. J Rosenhead, 2006. "Past, present and future of problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 759-765, July.
    5. Corinne Moser & Michael Stauffacher & Yann B. Blumer & Roland W. Scholz, 2015. "From risk to vulnerability: the role of perceived adaptive capacity for the acceptance of contested infrastructure," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(5), pages 622-636, May.
    6. Roland W. Scholz & Ralf Hansmann, 2007. "Combining Experts' Risk Judgments on Technology Performance of Phytoremediation: Self‐Confidence Ratings, Averaging Procedures, and Formative Consensus Building," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 225-240, February.
    7. Hogarth, Robin M & Kunreuther, Howard, 1985. "Ambiguity and Insurance Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 386-390, May.
    8. Roland W. Scholz, 2017. "The Normative Dimension in Transdisciplinarity, Transition Management, and Transformation Sciences: New Roles of Science and Universities in Sustainable Transitioning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-31, June.
    9. Fang, Yi-Ping & Zio, Enrico, 2019. "An adaptive robust framework for the optimization of the resilience of interdependent infrastructures under natural hazards," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1119-1136.
    10. Roland W. Scholz, 2017. "Digital Threat and Vulnerability Management: The SVIDT Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-26, April.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Mingers, John & Rosenhead, Jonathan, 2004. "Problem structuring methods in action," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 530-554, February.
    13. Thomas Breuer & Martin Jandacka & Klaus Rheinberger & Martin Summer, 2009. "How to Find Plausible, Severe and Useful Stress Scenarios," International Journal of Central Banking, International Journal of Central Banking, vol. 5(3), pages 205-224, September.
    14. J Rosenhead, 2009. "Reflections on fifty years of operational research," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(1), pages 5-15, May.
    15. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Plischke, Elmar, 2016. "Sensitivity analysis: A review of recent advances," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(3), pages 869-887.
    16. Robert D. Hisrich & Veland Ramadani, 2017. "Effective Entrepreneurial Management," Springer Texts in Business and Economics, Springer, number 978-3-319-50467-4, June.
    17. C Eden & F Ackermann, 2006. "Where next for problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 766-768, July.
    18. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, 2012. "Confronting Deep Uncertainties in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1607-1629, October.
    19. Wallerstein, N. & Duran, B., 2010. "Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 100(S1), pages 40-46.
    20. Alexander J. McNeil & Rüdiger Frey & Paul Embrechts, 2015. "Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques and Tools Revised edition," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 2, number 10496.
    21. Laurent El Ghaoui & Maksim Oks & Francois Oustry, 2003. "Worst-Case Value-At-Risk and Robust Portfolio Optimization: A Conic Programming Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 51(4), pages 543-556, August.
    22. Roland W. Scholz & Yann B. Blumer & Fridolin S. Brand, 2012. "Risk, vulnerability, robustness, and resilience from a decision-theoretic perspective," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 313-330, March.
    23. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    24. Christof Weinhardt & Arun Anandasivam & Benjamin Blau & Nikolay Borissov & Thomas Meinl & Wibke Michalk & Jochen Stößer, 2009. "Cloud Computing – A Classification, Business Models, and Research Directions," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 1(5), pages 391-399, October.
    25. Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 225-250, October.
    26. Masahiro Sugiyama & Hiroshi Deguchi & Arisa Ema & Atsuo Kishimoto & Junichiro Mori & Hideaki Shiroyama & Roland W. Scholz, 2017. "Unintended Side Effects of Digital Transition: Perspectives of Japanese Experts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-20, November.
    27. Roland W. Scholz & Eric J. Bartelsman & Sarah Diefenbach & Lude Franke & Arnim Grunwald & Dirk Helbing & Richard Hill & Lorenz Hilty & Mattias Höjer & Stefan Klauser & Christian Montag & Peter Parycek, 2018. "Unintended Side Effects of the Digital Transition: European Scientists’ Messages from a Proposition-Based Expert Round Table," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-48, June.
    28. Ackermann, Fran, 2012. "Problem structuring methods ‘in the Dock’: Arguing the case for Soft OR," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 652-658.
    29. Dyson, Robert G., 2004. "Strategic development and SWOT analysis at the University of Warwick," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 631-640, February.
    30. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Some Recent Definitions and Analysis Frameworks for Risk, Vulnerability, and Resilience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 515-522, April.
    31. Eden, Colin & Smithin, Tim, 1979. "Operational gaming in action research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 450-458, November.
    32. Mingers, John & White, Leroy, 2010. "A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1147-1161, December.
    33. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    34. Aven, Terje, 2007. "A unified framework for risk and vulnerability analysis covering both safety and security," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(6), pages 745-754.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tijan, Edvard & Jović, Marija & Aksentijević, Saša & Pucihar, Andreja, 2021. "Digital transformation in the maritime transport sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    2. Marija Jović & Edvard Tijan & Doroteja Vidmar & Andreja Pucihar, 2022. "Factors of Digital Transformation in the Maritime Transport Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-18, August.
    3. Jichang Zhang & Jing Long & Alexandra Martina Eugenie von Schaewen, 2021. "How Does Digital Transformation Improve Organizational Resilience?—Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-22, October.
    4. Gabriela Viale Pereira & Elsa Estevez & Diego Cardona & Carlos Chesñevar & Pablo Collazzo-Yelpo & Maria Alexandra Cunha & Eduardo Henrique Diniz & Alex Antonio Ferraresi & Frida Marina Fischer & Flúvi, 2020. "South American Expert Roundtable: Increasing Adaptive Governance Capacity for Coping with Unintended Side Effects of Digital Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-47, January.
    5. Thomas J. Lampoltshammer & Valerie Albrecht & Corinna Raith, 2021. "Teaching Digital Sustainability in Higher Education from a Transdisciplinary Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, October.
    6. Liliya Satalkina & Gerald Steiner, 2020. "Digital Entrepreneurship and its Role in Innovation Systems: A Systematic Literature Review as a Basis for Future Research Avenues for Sustainable Transitions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-27, April.
    7. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.
    8. Guangping Xu & Guangyuan Hou & Jinshan Zhang, 2022. "Digital Sustainable Entrepreneurship: A Digital Capability Perspective through Digital Innovation Orientation for Social and Environmental Value Creation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-24, September.
    9. Scholz, Roland W. & Köckler, Heike & Zscheischler, Jana & Czichos, Reiner & Hofmann, Klaus-Markus & Sindermann, Cornelia, 2024. "Transdisciplinary knowledge integration PART II: Experiences of five transdisciplinary processes on digital data use in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    10. Nguyen, Son & Shu-Ling Chen, Peggy & Du, Yuquan, 2022. "Risk assessment of maritime container shipping blockchain-integrated systems: An analysis of multi-event scenarios," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gabriela Viale Pereira & Elsa Estevez & Diego Cardona & Carlos Chesñevar & Pablo Collazzo-Yelpo & Maria Alexandra Cunha & Eduardo Henrique Diniz & Alex Antonio Ferraresi & Frida Marina Fischer & Flúvi, 2020. "South American Expert Roundtable: Increasing Adaptive Governance Capacity for Coping with Unintended Side Effects of Digital Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-47, January.
    2. Scholz, Roland W. & Köckler, Heike & Zscheischler, Jana & Czichos, Reiner & Hofmann, Klaus-Markus & Sindermann, Cornelia, 2024. "Transdisciplinary knowledge integration PART II: Experiences of five transdisciplinary processes on digital data use in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    3. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    4. Ya Li & Zhichang Zhu & Catherine M. Gerard, 2012. "Learning from Conflict Resolution: An Opportunity to Systems Thinking," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 209-220, March.
    5. Small, Adrian & Wainwright, David, 2018. "Privacy and security of electronic patient records – Tailoring multimethodology to explore the socio-political problems associated with Role Based Access Control systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 344-360.
    6. Ion Georgiou & Joaquim Heck, 2021. "The emergence of problem structuring methods, 1950s–1989: An atlas of the journal literature," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 756-796, November.
    7. Abuabara, Leila & Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2021. "Surveying applications of Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) from 1989 to 2018," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(3), pages 1051-1065.
    8. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2014. "The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 932-945.
    9. White, Leroy, 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 827-841.
    10. Kazakov, Rossen & Howick, Susan & Morton, Alec, 2021. "Managing complex adaptive systems: A resource/agent qualitative modelling perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 290(1), pages 386-400.
    11. Konsti-Laakso, Suvi & Rantala, Tero, 2018. "Managing community engagement: A process model for urban planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1040-1049.
    12. David Lowe & Louise Martingale & Mike Yearworth, 2016. "Guiding interventions in a multi-organisational context: combining the Viable System Model and Hierarchical Process Modelling for use as a Problem Structuring Method," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(12), pages 1481-1495, December.
    13. Killemsetty, Namesh & Johnson, Michael & Patel, Amit, 2022. "Understanding housing preferences of slum dwellers in India: A community-based operations research approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 699-713.
    14. Gregory, Amanda J. & Atkins, Jonathan P., 2018. "Community Operational Research and Citizen Science: Two icons in need of each other?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1111-1124.
    15. Wang, Yingli & Touboulic, Anne & O'Neill, Martin, 2018. "An exploration of solutions for improving access to affordable fresh food with disadvantaged Welsh communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1021-1039.
    16. Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael & Scholz, Roland W., 2012. "Linking stakeholder visions with resource allocation scenarios and multi-criteria assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 762-772.
    17. Jean Desrochers & J. Francois Outreville, 2013. "Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Risk Taking: an experimental investigation of consumer behavior and demand for insurance," ICER Working Papers 10-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    18. Wiek, Arnim & Walter, Alexander I., 2009. "A transdisciplinary approach for formalized integrated planning and decision-making in complex systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 360-370, August.
    19. Luke Houghton & Larry Crump, 2016. "Temporal Events and Problem Structuring," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 324-340, May.
    20. Espinosa, Angela & Walker, J., 2013. "Complexity management in practice: A Viable System Model intervention in an Irish eco-community," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 225(1), pages 118-129.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:282:y:2020:i:2:p:627-643. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.