Resilient Organisations after Repeated Disruption

1. Research problem

How does repeated crisis exposure alter organisational learning? The project would examine this question within organisational performance, where institutional arrangements, measurable outcomes and the costs of implementation may point in different directions. It is designed as a falsifiable research programme rather than a claim that the proposed mechanism has already been demonstrated.

2. Working proposition

Incident reviews integrated into budgeting may prevent the recurrence of known weaknesses. This is a testable proposition, not an established result. Competing explanations and contexts in which the mechanism fails should be specified before data collection begins.

3. Research theses for examination

1. Mechanism: Incident reviews integrated into budgeting may prevent the recurrence of known weaknesses.
2. Boundary conditions: Assess whether the proposition remains plausible when jurisdiction, organisational maturity, resource constraints or stakeholder interests change.
3. Disconfirmation: Record which observations would favour an alternative explanation or show that the proposed approach adds no meaningful value.

4. Research design and methods

Compare longitudinal incident histories and trace corrective-action completion. The initial protocol should establish sampling criteria, the unit of analysis, definitions of variables or legal concepts, a transparent source register, and access and ethics approvals where necessary.

5. Evidence horizon and relevant developments

The WEF Global Risks Report 2026 analyses connected risks across immediate, 2028 and 2036 horizons, based on a survey of more than 1,300 experts. Survey perceptions are not direct measurements of event probabilities.

ILO’s Employment and Social Trends 2026 reports resilient headline unemployment alongside stalled progress in job quality and persistent inequality. Labour-market outcomes should not be inferred from the unemployment rate alone.

The cited publications provide current institutional context and candidate sources for the literature review. They do not certify the proposed hypothesis; original empirical work, careful comparison and jurisdiction-specific validation would still be required.

6. Planned work packages

1. Conceptual groundwork: Define the research object, terminology, competing frameworks and decision context.
2. Evidence mapping: Create an auditable inventory of relevant primary evidence, with dates, definitions, strengths and limitations.
3. Evaluation: Compare longitudinal incident histories and trace corrective-action completion; contrast results with alternative specifications, control cases or rival interpretations.
4. Critical review: Report missing observations, conflicting evidence, implementation costs and circumstances that limit transferability.
5. Translation into practice: Prepare the intended practical output and an independent review checklist.

7. Anticipated research product

Organisational resilience maturity model. The deliverable will be evaluated against the research question and the evidence collected.

8. Limitations, ethics and scholarly integrity

At this stage no original sample, statistical test, clinical cohort or experimental result is claimed. Any future research involving human participants, proprietary data, medical outcomes or regulated activities must obtain the applicable permissions. Publicly accessible official publications are cited for context only; their findings are not represented as findings of BBARTI.

9. Selected institutional reading

• World Economic Forum · Global Risks Report 2026 ↗14 January 2026
• ILO · Employment and Social Trends 2026 ↗14 January 2026