The resilience framework focuses on an organization’s ability to absorb shocks, continue critical operations, and recover quickly from disruptive events — whether those come from internal process failures, cyberattacks, or external crises. It goes beyond traditional risk control by asking not just “How do we prevent loss?” but “How fast can we recover when loss occurs?” So how can a firm ensure that exposure identification remains dynamic — continuously updated as new products, technologies, or external threats emerge?
I wonder whether focusing too much on recovery speed risks missing the bigger picture, like resilience isn’t only about how fast we get back to normal, but also whether the old normal is worth returning to. Should resilience also include the capacity to redefine “normal” when external conditions fundamentally change? If we say resilience is a reflex, then it depends on how people behave under stress. What kind of training, culture, or feedback systems actually make that reflex stronger and how do we test it before a real crisis happens?
I really like the idea that resilience is “in the DNA.” It captures that resilience isn’t a binder on a shelf but a behavioral reflex, how people and systems adapt when controls fail or conditions shift. Plans create structure, but real resilience depends on how quickly an organization detects stress, reprioritizes, and reallocates capacity without waiting for escalation. It’s the ability to bend, not break. Embedding resilience means linking it to day-to-day routines such as scenario testing, cross-training, decision rights, and feedback loops, so that adaptive responses are automatic, not improvised. In that sense, resilience isn’t a backup function, it’s an ongoing capability that converts uncertainty into recoverable learning rather than unrecoverable loss.
Resilience is set for recovery after a risk event happens. Therefore, we pay more attention to the severity. Start from the impact, we measure how quick we can recover the business to normal. When setting a resilience plan, we can clearly identify the weaknesses and come up with solutions to protect business continuation.
I think resilience in operational risk is about more than just having backup plans. It’s about how ready and flexible the organization really is when things go wrong. Controls can fail, but a resilient team can still keep the business running. For me, true resilience means learning from small incidents, improving systems, and making adaptability part of daily work instead of an emergency reaction. If resilience becomes part of our routine thinking ,not just a checklist, we are able to handle shocks faster and with less damage.
Right, and not just resilience, all of ECRG should be your routine thinking, not just a checklist; then you will be able to identify the exposure ( potential financial losses), control those losses within the RA, absorb the loss, and recover fast after a loss happens and ensure the governance is in place for the ECR all happen efficiently and effectively. The result risk management is smoother faster and with less damage.
The resilience framework focuses on an organization’s ability to absorb shocks, continue critical operations, and recover quickly from disruptive events — whether those come from internal process failures, cyberattacks, or external crises. It goes beyond traditional risk control by asking not just “How do we prevent loss?” but “How fast can we recover when loss occurs?” So how can a firm ensure that exposure identification remains dynamic — continuously updated as new products, technologies, or external threats emerge?
I wonder whether focusing too much on recovery speed risks missing the bigger picture, like resilience isn’t only about how fast we get back to normal, but also whether the old normal is worth returning to. Should resilience also include the capacity to redefine “normal” when external conditions fundamentally change? If we say resilience is a reflex, then it depends on how people behave under stress. What kind of training, culture, or feedback systems actually make that reflex stronger and how do we test it before a real crisis happens?
I really like the idea that resilience is “in the DNA.” It captures that resilience isn’t a binder on a shelf but a behavioral reflex, how people and systems adapt when controls fail or conditions shift. Plans create structure, but real resilience depends on how quickly an organization detects stress, reprioritizes, and reallocates capacity without waiting for escalation. It’s the ability to bend, not break. Embedding resilience means linking it to day-to-day routines such as scenario testing, cross-training, decision rights, and feedback loops, so that adaptive responses are automatic, not improvised. In that sense, resilience isn’t a backup function, it’s an ongoing capability that converts uncertainty into recoverable learning rather than unrecoverable loss.
Resilience is set for recovery after a risk event happens. Therefore, we pay more attention to the severity. Start from the impact, we measure how quick we can recover the business to normal. When setting a resilience plan, we can clearly identify the weaknesses and come up with solutions to protect business continuation.
I think resilience in operational risk is about more than just having backup plans. It’s about how ready and flexible the organization really is when things go wrong. Controls can fail, but a resilient team can still keep the business running. For me, true resilience means learning from small incidents, improving systems, and making adaptability part of daily work instead of an emergency reaction. If resilience becomes part of our routine thinking ,not just a checklist, we are able to handle shocks faster and with less damage.