Resources / Research & evidence
Decades of research explain how external shocks reach firms, spread through value chains, and challenge managerial decisions. This is the foundation for CrisisFlow's design. Explore the findings, their practical relevance, and their limits.
What the research contributes
These findings inform how CrisisFlow connects an external event to a company's choices. The guide explains the supporting evidence, its scope, and where judgment is needed.
Research on political risk finds substantial differences between firms that aggregate country or industry indicators do not capture.
Implication for the decision Use hazard-family, site, and company views to connect a hazard to the operations and commitments that matter. Keep gaps in coverage visible.
Studies of natural disasters show effects reaching direct and indirect suppliers and customers. Specific inputs and substitution difficulty can amplify propagation.
Implication for the decision Trace internal and external dependencies to the agreed tier. A mapped supplier is useful when the manager can see what depends on it and whether a substitute is feasible.
Research on firms near natural disasters shows how a salient event can shift managers’ concern and financial decisions, even outside the directly affected area.
Implication for the decision Separate the alert from its consequences for the business. Make verified information, assumptions, and projected impacts distinguishable before committing resources.
Analytical and applied research shows why mitigation and contingency choices depend on capacity, flexibility, disruption duration, and business consequences.
Implication for the decision Compare feasible response portfolios against continuity, cost, and recovery goals. As conditions change, account for actions already underway before choosing the next response.
Rare disruptions provide limited opportunities to learn. Research shows that how organizations interpret experience matters, and that success and failure can lead to different lessons.
Implication for the decision Preserve what was expected when a decision was made. Compare it with what happened, then test whether a proposed preparation measure improves continuity enough to justify its cost.
Interpreting the measures
Read a value alongside its meaning, scope, and assumptions. The interactive case makes the following distinctions.
Evidence and oversight
The source of an event, a company's operating information, and a model's projection play different roles. A manager needs to see which is which.
Identify the source, date, coverage, and relevance of the information. Record gaps and conflicting evidence.
Make the operating assumptions and material constraints explicit. Identify what new information would change the choice.
Preserve the chosen response, rationale, responsible people, and required authorization. A recommendation is not permission to act.
Retain earlier expectations as new information arrives. Distinguish a changed forecast from execution and an observed outcome.
The guide includes an annotated evidence-to-decision example and the questions operations, finance, and governance teams should ask.
Evaluating performance
Evaluate CrisisFlow against the decisions and outcomes that matter to your company, including business continuity, response cost, and recovery.
Agree on the operating decision, required information, and comparison with the existing process. Assess time to understand exposure, whether actions are feasible, and the consequences for continuity, cost, and recovery. Compare observed outcomes with the original expectations, accounting for changes in conditions.
Start with one operating decision →Your next step
The guide explains what the evidence supports, where its limits matter, and how to assess a decision. Supporting references are included for further review.
