185
1 INTRODUCTION
Reliable port services are key to the performance of
port organizational ecosystems which are an
importantpartofnationaleconomies’integrationinto
the worldwide international trade system. An
emphasis on the resilience of port organizational
ecosystems provides flexible and collaborative
modellingoftheseecosystemstoaddressthe
diverse
risks of disruption proactively, particularly as new
hazards and threats are constantly evolving [1].
Additionally, insufficiency of resilience‐related
scientific literature in the maritime domain together
withthevisiontoestablishresilientmaritimebusiness
results in an urgent need to develop a modelling
method using integrated theoretical approaches of
organizational
resilience and maritime business risk
management for elaborating the structured
uncertainties’ system which will help organizational
ecosystemstodevelopeffectivemanagerialdecisions
fortheenhancementoftheirresilience.
Therearetwopossiblewaystoreducethenegative
impact of external environment on the processes in
maritime business: one of them
is the prevention‐
oriented management which includes defensive
measuresforreducingtheprobabilityofuncertainties
or extent that an ecosystem will be affected by
Exploring the Factors that Affect the Resilience of Port
Organizational Ecosystems through a Survey
of Common Uncertainties
E.Valionienė&E.Župerkienė
KlaipedaUniversity,Klaipėda,Lithuania
ABSTRACT: Reliable port services are key to the performance of port organizational ecosystems. These
ecosystemsareanintegralpartofthetransportationsystemandarevulnerabletodisastersofanthropogenicor
naturalcauses,includingnaturaldisasters,maliciouscyber‐attacks,technologicalfactors,organizationalfactors,
economicfactors,and
humanmistakes,andotheruncertainties.Toaddressthechallengestriggeredbythese
uncertainties, this research is dedicated to the detailed analysis of organizational resilience, the port
organizationalecosystem’sresilience,andpossibleuncertaintieswhicharethebasicfactorsformodellingthe
resilience of the whole port organizational ecosystem. The research aim
is to analyse the uncertainties
influencing the port organizational ecosystem’s functioning in the context of the port organizational
ecosystem’s resilience. Research methodology is based on theoretical modelling including analysis of port
organizationalparametersrepresentingresiliencelevel.Theresearchresultsfoundthattheportorganizational
ecosystem’sresiliencecould bedefinedby the
mainorganizational resiliencedriverssuch asleadershipand
adaptivecapacity,whichareinterrelatedandhavethefunctionsofmainbusinessexcellencedrivers.Also,it
wasfoundthattheexternalandinternalportresiliencefactorscouldbeclassifiedbytheirnature,field,andtype
of organizational resilience components. All uncertainties could
be categorized in a three‐dimensional
uncertainties model which could be used for elaborating effective managerial interventions in future
investigations.
http://www.transnav.eu
The International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 18
Number 1
March 2024
DOI:10.12716/1001.18.01.19
186
unpredictedexternalfactors,toimproveitsresistance
and reduce the possible losses it may suffer [1]; the
other is response‐driven management which
improves the recoverability of ecosystems after the
occurrence of disruptions and restores normal
conditions as soon as possible [2]. The theory of
organizational ecosystem resilience enables
the
possibilitytoanalysetheintegralcombinationofthese
two types of management for the enhancement of
organizationalecosystem’sresilience.
The research aim is to analyse the uncertainties
influencing the port organizational ecosystem’s
functioning in the context of port organizational
ecosystem’sresilience.
Theresearchobjectivesare:
To explain the organizational
resilience
enhancementmodel’sparameters.
To substantiate the definition the seaport
organizationalecosystem’sresilience.
Toidentifymainuncertaintiesbylocatingthemin
theorganizationalresiliencemodel.
Theresearchmethodology isbasedontheoretical
modellingsubjecttotheanalysisofpreviousresearch
conducted on resilience models and uncertainties’
management, theoretical
analysis of possible
uncertaintiesoftheseaportorganizationalecosystem.
2 THETHEORETICALMODELOF
ORGANIZATIONALRESILIENCE
Because resilience of the port organizational
ecosystem is directly related to the field of
organizational resilience research, the organizational
ecosystem resilience model for port organizational
resilience could be built upon by using existing
organizationalresilience
modelsbyextendingthemto
the specific resilience parameters appropriate to the
specificity of the maritime business sector. So, the
definition of organizational resilience is required as
the theoretical background which will enable the
identification of the correlation between the
uncertaintiesoftheseaportorganizationalecosystem
anddevelopingtheresilience
torespondtothem.
Thetermresiliencehasseveraldifferentdefinitions
andexplanationsindifferentcontexts:
Disturbance factors in different definitions are
definedasaccidentsandincidents[3], shocks[4],
stress [5], mishaps [6], operational hazards [7],
disasters [4], traumas [8] emergencies [3],
uncertainties [9], contingencies [10] and volatile,
uncertain,
complex and ambiguine (VUCA)
environment [11] including all elements into one
termofVUCAconditions.
Characteristics of influenced objects to the
response are called abilities (abilities to
accommodate[5],abilitiestoadapt[3],abilitiesto
cope [12], abilitiesto maintain [4], etc), capacities
(capacitytoadjust[8],capacityto
renew[13],etc.),
properties (properties to “bounce back” [4], etc.),
resistanceandrenewing[7].
Speedofreactioncanbefast[12]orshort‐term[4].
Basedonthesedefinitionsofthemaincomponents
of organizational resilience it can be assumed that
organizational resilience is the ability of an
organizationto
bepreparedtorespondtounexpected
regularandirregularexternaleventsinarobustand
flexiblemannerintheshortestperiodoftimepossible.
Notably, the organizational resilience theory
acknowledges the sensitivity of organizations to
gradual and random changes and that the main
determinantsofchangearenon‐linearand
noteasily
determined [6]. Based on these findings it can be
arguedthatuncertaintyisaprerequisiteforresilience
and resilience is a unique tool for organizational
planninginthefaceofuncertainties.
Due to the complexity of the definition of
organizational resilience researchers developed
organizational resilience model. Organizational
resilience,consistent
withtheresearchresults[9],[10],
[12],couldbe approached from two different angles
assuming the following definitions of static and
dynamicresilience:
Static resilience as the ability or capacity of an
organization to maintain functionality when
shocked [4] which proposes that resources are
usedwhiletheyareavailable
andaccessibleinthe
most effective way possible at the moment of
disaster.
Dynamic resilience as the ability to hasten the
speedatwhichanorganizationrecovers(‘bounces
back’) from a severe shock to achieve a desired
state[4]whichsuggestslong‐terminvestmentsfor
repairing and reconstructing organizational
processes.
These assumptions made for the modelling of
organizationalresilienceassumethatallorganizations
have the capacity [13] or potential for the resilience
[14]. Consequentially,resilience can be defined not
onlyasa static characteristicof anorganization, but
alsoas a multiparametricfunction with dynamics in
change, which incorporates the
speed of reactions
identified in the definition ofresilience[8] and
consists of several main contextual blocks including
people, organizational context for change,
organizational processes and external environment
[15].
As figure 1 demonstrates, the organizational
resilience model can be developed by extending the
parametric groups from the organizational
functioningpointofview
[16].
Thus, a research model can be constructed by
developing Zahra’s predictors model [17]. In this
model organizational resilience is advanced by
removingexternal environmentfromtheinfluencing
factors’ group and by building organizational
resilience based on individual and organizational
components. Asfigure 1 demonstrates,
organizational resilience (OR) is dependent
on the
components of resilient leadership (RL), resilient
organizational culture (ROC), adaptive capacity
(AAC), resilient critical infrastructure (RCI) and
organizationalandmanagerialcapabilities(OMC)on
the organizational level and on the components of
awareness cognition (AC), organizational learning
(OL) and psychological alignment (PA) on the
individual level. Furthermore, all aforementioned
components
couldbecustomaryintheiractivationas
areactiontoexternaluncertainties(fig.1).
187
Figure1. Components of organizationalresilience [8], [16],
[17]
Basedon the literatureanalysis, it is evident that
organizational resilience could be enhanced by
increasing organizational adaptive capacity on the
basis of strengthening resilient leadership (fig. 2)
where resilient leadership (L) is a consequence for
increasing in adaptive capacity (AAC) [16], which
explains the propensityof organizations to adjust
their
characteristics or organizational behaviour to
copewithexternalstressesandshocks[18].Asoneof
the organizational resilience characteristics, the
adaptive capacity (A
… in figure 1) enables
organizations to learn and to retain knowledge and
experiences to increase their functional resilience to
hazards [19] and by the nature of its definition can
explaintheresilienceoforganizationalecosystemsas
well as organizations [20]. Resilientleadership(L) is
animportantinfluencingfactorforadaptivecapacity
[21]. Furthermore, based on the organizational
resilience modelling results, resilience could be
explained in accordance with a theoretical model
constructed on the resilience predictors model [17],
whichwasmodifiedforthepurposesofthisresearch
studyandispresentedinfigure2.
Asidentifiedintheorganizationalresilience(OR)
model
(fig. 2), all components can be arranged into
separate groups based on the organization’s general
definitionasfollows:
Organizationalculturecomponents(ROC)include
parameters of commitment, involvement,
networking,culturalandtraditionalrelationships,
interculturalcommunication.
Individual level components (ILP) include
parameters of individual resilience (fig.1),
comfortable workplace and work regime,
psychologicalclimate,partnershipandcooperation
culture, loyalty, and motivation to the awareness
of cognition, organizational learning, and
psychologicalalignment.
Criticalinfrastructurecomponents(CI)includeall
technical resources’ preparedness for the
uncertainties in the external environment and
including CI development and management
options.
Organizational and managerial capacities (OMC)
include
allgovernanceandmanagementprinciples
and tools and best practices of managerial
interventions.
Leadership(L)
Organizationaladaptivecapacities(AAC).
Figure2. The theoreticalmodeloforganizationalresilience
[16],[17],[21],[20]
Thus, the analysis of organizational resilience
definitionscould,arguably,beconsideredtobeoneof
the main drivers of organizational resilience and
defined as interconnected components of leadership
and adaptive capacities connected through the
components of organizational culture, individual
resilience, critical infrastructure, and managerial
capacities. Crucially, each component of
organizationalresilience
providesasetofmanagerial
interventions. Therefore, as figure 2 exhibits,
organizational resilience could be enhanced by
improving all components. Nevertheless,from the
perspective of enhancing organizational resilience,
oneofthemostsignificantcomponentsistheadaptive
capacity component (AAC), which is the component
of managing uncertainties through managerial
interventions
dedicated to the development of
resilienceinitsweakestareas(A
…).
3 THEDEFINITIONOFTHERESILIENCEOF
PORTORGANIZATIONALECOSYSTEM
As the global business environment changes, no
companyoperatesinisolation[22].Rapidchangesin
global international trade, development of new
technologies and integration into the business
processes,anduncertaintiesintheenvironmentcreate
special emergency conditions for each organization
and their business processes, including public and
private capital organizations [23]. Such changes
shaped the need for a flexible business models’
188
platformthatwouldbecapableofcreatingchangesin
businessprocessesandperformingflexibletransitions
in added value creation pursuant to unpredicted
changesinorganizationalenvironment[24].Platform‐
based businessmodelsfocusmore onthe social and
economic relationship between added value actions
creation for the stakeholders and providing
critical
infrastructure [25]. This point of view considers the
existenceoforganizationalecosystemswiththeirown
platform‐based business processes. Initially, the
definition of an organizational business ecosystem
originated from ecology sciences and was later
adoptedforuseinmanagementsciences,especiallyin
the field of business studies [26]. An ecosystem
is
explained as a group of interconnected players that
act together with the common goals to create value
and gain benefit under the conditions of balanced
functioningtogetherorincorporatedwiththeexternal
ecosystems[23].
Seaports are good examples of organizational
ecosystemswheretherearemanyplayersandalot
of
interactionsbetweenthemwhileworkingtogetherfor
thecreation of addedvalue for stakeholdersandfor
the ecosystem’s business processes excellence. This
ecosystem serves as a profit source for a variety of
businesses, including shippers, shipping agents,
energy companies, importers, and exporters, port
authorities, municipalities, and hinterland business
organizations [27].
The first known definitions of
portsasecosystemscanbefoundinresearchonport
governance effectiveness [28], [29], which focused
mainly oneffective management related problem
resolution.Allmanagerialfunctionalsegmentsofthe
interface presented in figure 3 consist of different
organizations, which consist of bothpublic and
private
capital funded organizations, operate on
national and international organizational levels, and
have different interests in general, but share
connecting interests of profit and benefit as well as
effective functioning of port organizational structure
for added value creation. Further, in the context of
specialized functional triads operating in the global
market, the
maritime transport sector in the region
was split into three categoriesincluding port
authority,port,andmaritimenetwork.Thesefindings
had an impact on later research hypothesis that
effectivelymanaged seaports can have an impact on
thewholemaritimetransportsectorattractivenessin
theregion[30].Thus,themanagementof
theseaport
organizational ecosystem which is dynamic and
constantly evolving due to organizations interacting
and adopting their environments based on co‐
evolution processes of the whole ecosystem can be
considered highly complex[31]. Further, these
findingscreatepreconditionstoanalysenotonlythe
effectivenessofthegovernancebutalsodelvedeeper
into
possiblemanagerialpracticesthatcouldserveto
increasetheresponsivenesstothenegativeimpactof
externalfactorswithintheseecosystems.
The organizationalecosystem of the modern port
serves as a profit finding centre for a variety of
business and it consists of three levels(fig. 3): the
infrastructure and the superstructure
operational
levels, and the added value creation levels which
consists of extended stakeholders including societies
andnationaleconomy[3].Duetohighorganizational
involvement and elaborate effective managerial
algorithms,this ecosystem creates the conditions for
competitivecooperationdevelopment,whichisoneof
preconditions for the adaptive capacity formation in
ecosystems [19].
However, in this setting
competition among port organisations is not only
competition between the core competencies of the
port,portindustrychainortheportsupplychain,but
also competition between the whole port
organizational ecosystem operating in line with the
principles of the business ecosystems[22]. Thus, the
phenomenon of
competition influenced by added
value increases cooperation in organizational
ecosystems (fig. 3), and cooperation within seaport
organizationalecosystemscouldbesplitintovertical
cooperation, horizontal cooperation and the
cooperation between organizations and the
environment[32].
Figure3. Illustration of the seaport organizational
ecosystem[30],[33],[34]
Basedonthesefindings,itcanbearguedthatthe
organizational ecosystem does not exist in isolation
but rather develops in tandem with different
organizations helping to influence and replicate one
another by competing and cooperating. The
aforementionedattributes enable the definition of
theportorganizationalecosystemastheportbusiness
ecosystem, which centres around two additional
factors:
Systemlevelorganizationalgoalsusuallyfocusing
onperformanceandefficiency[35],
Whether these goals can beaccomplished
dependsontheorganizationalinterdependencein
the ecosystem based on interdependent
workflows, often spanning conventional
organizationalandindustrialboundaries[36].
Further,theseaport organizational
ecosystemhas
beenidentifiedasthemainworkflowelementuniting
all port organizations to work on the global supply
chain together for the added value purposes for
themselvesand forthe wholeecosystem conforming
to the main principles defined by modern
managementtheoriesincludingprinciplesofcomplex
adaptive systems [33]. Consequentially,
it can be
189
arguedthattheseaportorganizationalecosystemasa
businessecosystemisanaddedvaluedrivensystem,
with a demand for effective governance patterns,
leadership, and is managerial interventions and
practicesorientedfortheenhancingofecosystemsin
theiradaptivecapacities[34].Theseargumentsenable
the classification of an interlinked
component
between organizational ecosystems and
entrepreneurial ecosystems in the context of port
organizational ecosystem’s resilience enhancement.
As research analysis demonstrates, the definition of
the entrepreneurial ecosystemsis definitively
related to the adaptive capacity component. This
connection aidsin the identification of the
relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystem and
the theoretical model of
organizational resilience
based on the definitions of adaptive capacity of
entrepreneurialecosystemsas:
Behaviourtomodifyorchangecharacteristicsfast
accordingtoexistingoremergingstresses[18].
Capacitiestolearnandtostoreknowledgeonthe
organizational, ecosystem levels of structures,
capabilities,andnetworks[19].
Flexibilityin
applicationofknowledgetoimprove
inadoptiontoartificialandnaturalhazards[20].
Ability to make decisions on effective process
information management with the purpose to
strengthenresilienceinitiativesthroughqualitative
andscientificmethodologyreliability[19],[37].
In addition to the definition of the port
organizationalecosystems’resilience,itcan
beargued
thattheleadershipandadaptivecapacitycomponents
for increasing the resilience of the ecosystem are
significantinthedefinitionofbusinessecosystemsas
wellasintheentrepreneurialecosystems.Asummary
of the definition of port organizational ecosystems’
resiliencebased onthese findingscouldthereforebe
that the
port organizational ecosystem has unique
characteristics determined by its specific field of
activitiesintheglobalsupplychainanditscriticalrole
as crucial land‐water interface , and also shares the
characteristicsof business ecosystems due to its
addedvalueorientedgoals,andthecharacteristicsof
entrepreneurialecosystemsdueto
itsneedtodevelop
in adaptive capacity. As such, the seaport
organizational ecosystem’s resilience could be
explained by the model of organizational resilience
andbyaddingthecharacteristicofadaptivecapacity
identifiedintheresearchontheresilienceofbusiness
and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Consequentially,
seaportorganizationalecosystem’sresiliencecouldbe
enhanced by modelling the leadership phenomenon
and its influence on adaptive capacity based on
resilient critical infrastructures, resilient
organizational ecosystem’s culture, resilient human
resources with organizational knowledge and
experience, and effectively utilizing managerial
interventionsformanaginguncertainties.
4 THEDEFINITIONOFUNCERTAINTIES
INFLUENCINGTHEPORTORGANIZATIONAL
ECOSYSTEM
Basedonfindingspresented
earlier,thecomplexityof
the seaport ecosystem’s operational environment
emphasisesthatthefunctioningoftheportecosystem
cannot be defined only by aggregation factors, but
should be considered as an emerging phenomenon
encompassing the components of an ecosystem’s
vulnerabilityandadaptivecapacity[38].Vulnerability
within the seaport organizational ecosystem may
be
definedasoneofthepropertiesofthisecosystem,its
premises, facilities, required infrastructure and
equipment, inter‐ and intra‐ organizational
constructions,includingcontracts,incentives,human
resources, human organization and all its software,
hardwareandnetware,thatmayweakenorlimitthe
ecosystem’s ability to fight the threats and survive
disruptions
thatoriginatebothwithinandoutsideof
theboundariesofthelogisticsupplychainecosystem
[3],[39],[40].
The definition of organizational ecosystem’s
adaptivity aids in logically connecting it to the
theoretical model of organizational resilience,
whereby the resulting driver of organizational
resilience is defined as the component of adaptive
capacity (fig. 3) and is broadly analysed upon
adaptive management theory’s principles where the
resilience assessment process is identified [6]. The
resilience assessment process is inclusive of risk
assessmentandhasemergedinresponsetoitspitfalls
by providing a framework that considers the
inevitability of unforeseen periods of gradual and
rapiddisruptionsandleavinginflexibilitytoaccount
for emerging information that may facilitate future
adaptations of organizational ecosystems [41].
Therefore, it can be assumed that for the
implementation of resilience assessment of the port
organizational ecosystem it is required to have a
complexmodeloftheportorganizationalecosystem’s
disruptionfactors.
The latest research on the seaport ecosystem’s
resilience[34],[42]foundthatsomecriticalpointsof
interconnections of maritime business with the
environment cannot be minimized by simply
adapting the governance models and patterns. As a
result, additional managerial interventions must be
identified and applied for the creation of
organizational and inter‐networking resistance to
these factors dependant on their nature. As
demonstrated in the theoretical framework of
organizationalresilience,allexternalfactorsshouldbe
considered before making resilience‐based decisions
inorganizationswithintheorganizationalecosystem.
From this point of view, in the context of
organizational ecosystem response,
a single
organization should not respond to externalities
individually, but in line with the managerial and
organizational capacities of the organizational
ecosystem [42]. Another specificity of organizational
ecosystem’sresilienceisbasedontheassumptionthat
the maritime business’ resilience could be evaluated
through key performance parameters and
organizational ecosystem’s resilience could
be
enhancednotonlyinrelationshiptothecontingency
of the external environment, but also by including
important internal emergent parameters, namely,
external threats that are political, economic, social,
technological, environmental and legislator‐related
factors that are divided into sub‐groups of internal
treatsthatarehuman,organizations,andnetworking
andaccessfactorswhicharefurtherdividedintothe
190
sub‐groups. All these disruptions can stem from a
variety of factors: some are foreseeable, many are
accidental, and others are unanticipated [34].
Therefore,itcanbearguedthatfortheenhancement
of port organizational ecosystem’s resilience these
uncertainfactorsshouldbeanalysedandstoredina
systemwhich
shouldbeupdatedperiodicallybecause
eachoneoftheuncertainfactorsortheircombination
couldinfluence significantvulnerabilitiesofthe port
organizationalecosystem.
Many vulnerabilities have been identified in the
field of maritime research. Some authors [4], [10]
recognizeuncertainfactorsasthereasonsfortheport
ecosystem’s vulnerability: ship re
‐routing, export
diversion, material resources usage, conservation,
unused capacities, input substitutions, import
substitution, production recapture, rescheduling of
timetables. Other authors [38], [40] classify
uncertainties into operational, security technical,
organizational, natural, and managerial groups and
identifytheseunpredictedfactors’sources:
Operational: equipment failures, vessel accidents,
cargospillage,humanerrors.
Security and safety: sabotage, terrorism attacks,
surveillancesystemfailures,arson.
Technical: lack of equipment maintenance, of
navigational systems, IT infrastructure, dredging
maintenance.
Organizational: labour unrest, dispute with
regulatory bodies, interorganizational conflicts,
congestions.
Natural:hydrologic,atmospheric,geologic,seismic
uncertainties(fig.4).
Figure4. Seaport organizational ecosystem’s uncertainties
[43],[44].
Different types of uncertainties could trigger the
vulnerabilities of the port organizational ecosystem
(fig.4),indifferentlevelsofenvironment(fig.5).
Notably, the port organizational ecosystemis not
only complex in itself, but also has a complex
environment split into different levels: the
microeconomic level which is created by
organizations
and theirinterrelationships; themezzo
economic level – which is created on the level of
organizational ecosystem; the macro level which is
created on the level of national economy, the mega
levelwhichexistsintheregionalcontextandseaport
organizationalecosystem’sthegiga‐levelconnecting
externalities on the level
of global international
economy and trade [30]. Based on the PESTEL
methodology,allexternaluncertaintiesplacedonthe
macro, mega andgiga economiclevels are split into
functional groups by their nature. So, they are
uncertain factors in the fields of policies, economic,
social, technologic, ecologic and law [34]. Factors of
the micro and mezzo economic environment of the
port organizational ecosystem are not external, but
internal uncertain factors, which can also have a
negativeimpact on the decreasingof an ecosystem’s
resilienceiftheyarenotcontrolledandmanaged[10].
Figure5. Theoretical three‐dimensional model for the port
organizationalecosystems’uncertainties
These findings allow the assumption that the
general classification of uncertainties is a two‐
dimensional model but, according to the
organizational resilience theoretical framework, they
also are divided into functional groups pursuant to
possible managerial intervention types. So, the
assignment of uncertainties’ parametrization
transforms into a three‐dimensional model and
increases
in its complexity. By defining possible
uncertainfactorsandpossiblealternativereactionsby
applying different managerial interventions it is
possible to improve the seaport organizational
ecosystem’abilitytohandleexpectedandunexpected
situations to continue functioning in a systematic
resilientmanner.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The definition of organizational resilience suggests
that
theoretically organizational resilience could be
presented as the parametrized model of nonlinear
function, consisting of six components split between
the main resilience drivers (leadership and adaptive
capacity) and components – arguments (critical
infrastructure, organizational culture, individual
resilience,organizationalandmanagerialcapacities).
Theoretical analysis of scientific sources on the
organizational ecosystems, business
ecosystems and
entrepreneurial ecosystems aid in determining that
theenhancementinresilienceisrelatedtoincreasing
adaptive capacity and this increase should be
implemented by developing the leadership
phenomenoninorganizationswhichalsoresultsinan
increase in business excellence. Because the seaport
functionsastheportentrepreneurialecosystem,their
added value is business excellence of the whole
ecosystem as well as business excellence of
organizations whichareoperatingin this ecosystem.
The leadership component is the driver for
191
accelerating managerial interventions in combatting
vulnerabilities which results in the enhancing of the
adaptive capacity that is the determinant of the
organizational ecosystem’sresilience. Modellingport
organizational ecosystem resilience could be
implemented by combining the adaptive capacity
function with the leadership argument where
leadership is a function of the
four main resilience
components:criticalinfrastructure,humanresources,
organizational culture, and the organizational and
managerial capacities. The outcome of resilience
enhancementis increasing thebusiness excellence of
theportorganizationalecosystem.
Inlinewiththecomplexityofportorganizational
ecosystem,theexternalandinternaluncertaintiesalso
havehighlevelsofcomplexity
andcouldbepresented
in at least a three‐dimensional uncertainties’ model:
the first dimension is the nature of uncertainties
accordingtoPESTEL methodology, thesecond –the
leveloflocalizationinthecontextofappearce,andthe
thirdoneistheuncertaintiesclassificationpursuantto
themaincomponentsof
resiliencesuchasindividual
staff resilience, organizational and managerial
capabilities, organizational culture and critical
infrastructure.Theconstructionofatheoreticalmodel
of seaport organizational ecosystems’ uncertainties
createspossibilitiestoelaborateanddevelopeffective
managerial interventions for the increasing
responsiveness and resistance of all ecosystem’s
unpredictedvulnerabilities.
REFERENCES
[1]L. Gover and L. Duxbury, „Inside the Onion:
Understanding what Enhances and Inhibits
Organizational Resilience”, The Journal of Applied
BehaviouralScience,t.54,nr.4,pp.477‐501,2018.
[2]C. Wan, J. Tao, Z. Yang and D. Zhang, „Evaluating
Recovery Strategies for the Disruptions in Liner
Shipping Networks: A
Resilience Approach”, The
InternationalJournalofLogisticsManagement,t.33,nr.
2,pp.389‐409,2022.
[3]T. Nowakowski, M. Mlynczak, A. Tubis and S.
Werbinska‐Wojciechowska, „Conception of Decision
Support System for Resilience Management of Seaport
Supply Chains.”, The Journal of Polish Safety and
ReliabilityAssociation–SummerSafety
andReliability
Seminars,t.7,nr.1,pp.177‐186,2016.
[4]A. Rose and D. Wei, „Estimating the Economic
ConsequencesofaPortShutdown: The SpecialRoleof
Resilience”,EconomicSystemsResearch,,t.25,nr.2,pp.
212‐232,2013.
[5]E. Hollnagel, D. D. Woods and N. G. Levenson,
„Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Percepts”,
Aldershot:Ashgate,2006.
[6]C.Wilkinson,„Social‐ecologicalResilience:Insightsand
IssuesforPlanningTheory”,PlanningTheory,t.11,nr.
2,pp.148‐169,2012.
[7]R.Rosness,G.Guttormsen,T.Steiro,R.K.Tinmannsvik
and I. A. Herrera, „Organisational Accidents and
Resilient Organisations: Five
Perspectives”, SINTEF
IndustrialManagement,Trondheim,2004.
[8]G. A. Bonanno, „Resilience in the Face of Potential
trauma”,CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience,t.
14,pp.135‐138,2005.
[9]A. Rose, „Economic Resilience to Disasters:
MultidisciplinaryOriginsandContextualDimensions”,
EnvironmentalHazards:HumanandSocialDimensions,
pp.1‐16,2007.
[10]
A.Rose,ʺDefiningandMeasuringEconomicResilience
to Disastersʺ, Disaster Prevention and Management, t.
13,pp.307‐314,2004.
[11]T.Notteboom,T.PallisandJ.‐P.Rogrigue,„Disruptions
andResilienceinGlobalContainerShippingandPorts:
TheCOVID‐19Pandemicversusthe2008‐2009Financial
Crisis”,MaritimeEconomics
&Logistics,t.23,pp.179‐
210,2021.
[12]D.Wei, Z. Chen andA.Rose,„EvaluatingtheRoleof
ResilienceinReducingEconomicLossesfromDisasters:
A Multi‐ regional Analysis of Seaport Disruption”,
PapersinRegionalScience,t.99,pp.1691‐1722,2020.
[13]A. Aleksić, M. Stefanović,
S. Arsovski and D. Tadić,
„An Assessment of Organizational Resilience Potential
in SMEs of the Process Industry, a Fuzzy Approach”,
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, t.
26,pp.1238‐1245,2013.
[14]C. A. Lengnick‐Hall, T. E. Beck and M. L. Lengnick‐
Hall, „Developing a
Capacity for Organizational
Resilience through Strategic Human Resource
Management”, Human Resource Management Review,
t.2,pp.243‐255,2011.
[15]A.V.Lee,J.VargoandE.Seville,„DevelopingaToolto
Measure and Compare Organizations’ Resilience”,
NaturalHazardsReview,t.14,pp.29‐41,2013.
[16]S. N. Morales, L.
R. Martínez, J. A. H. Gómez, R. R.
López and T. A. Vianey, „Predictors of Organizational
ResiliencebyFactorialAnalysis.InternationalJournalof
Engineering Business Management”, International
Journal of Engineering Business Management, t. 11,
2019.
[17]S. A. Zhara, H. J. Sapienza and P. Davidsson,
„EntrepreneurshipandDynamicCapabilities:A
Review,
Model and Research Agenda”, Journal of Management
Studies,t.43,nr.4,pp.917‐955,2006.
[18]N.W.Adger,N.Brooks,M.Kelly,G.Bentham,M.D.
AgnewandS.Eriksen,„NewIndicatorsofVulnerability
and Adaptive Capacity”, Tyndall Centre for Climate
ChangeResearch,UK,2004.
[19]B.Smit
andJ.Wandel,„Adaptation,AdaptiveCapacity
and Vulnerability., 16(3), 282‐292.”, Global
EnvironmentalChange,t.16,nr.3,pp.282‐292,2006.
[20]S. C. Moser, J. A. Ekstrom, J. Kim and S. Heitsch,
„Adaptation Finance Archetypes: Local Governments’
PersistentChallengesofFundingAdaptationtoClimate
Change and Ways to
Overcome Them”, Ecology and
Society,t.24,nr.2,2019.
[21]A. Becker and E. Kretsch, „The Leadership Void for
ClimateAdaptationPlanning:CaseStudyofthePortof
Providence(RhodeIsland,UnitedStates)”, Frontiersin
EarthScience,t.7,2019.
[22]W.Li,T.Vanelslander,W.LiuandX.Xu,
„Co‐evolution
of Port Business Ecosystem Based on Evolutionary
GameTheory”,JournalofShippingandTrade,pp.5‐20,
2020.
[23]L. D. W. Thomas, E. Autio and D. M. Gann,
„ArchitecturalLeverage:PuttingPlatformsinContext”,
Academy of Management Perspectives,t. 28, nr. 2, pp.
198‐219,2014.
[24]
J. F. Gomes, L. Kemppainen, M. Pikkarainen, T.
Koivumäki and P. Ahokangas, „Ecosystemic Business
Model Scenarios for Connected Health”, Journal of
BusinessModels,t.7,nr.4,pp.27‐33,2019.
[25]Y. Xu, L. Kemppainen, P. Ahokangas and M.
Pikkarainen, „Opportunity Complementarity in Data‐
drivenBusinessModels.”,JournalofBusiness
Models,t.
8,nr.2,pp.92‐100,2020.
[26]A. Golzarjannat, P. Ahokangas, M. Matinmikko‐Blue
and S. Yrjola, „A Business Model Approach to Port
Ecosystem”, Journalof BusinessModels,t.9,nr. 1,pp.
13‐19,2021.
[27]A. H. Becker, P. Matson and M. Fischer, „Towards
Seaport
Resilience for Climate Change Adaptation:
Stakeholder Perceptions of Hurricane Impacts in
192
Gulfport (MS) and Providence (RI).”, Progress in
Planning,t.99,pp.1‐49,2015.
[28]J. van Leeuwen, „The Regionalization of Maritime
Governance:TowardsaPolycentricGovernanceSystem
forSustainableShippingintheEuropeanUnion”,Ocean
andCoastalManagement,t.117,pp.23‐31,2015.
[29]K. Ibrahimi, „A Theoretical Framework
for
Conceptualizing Seaport as Institutional and
Operational Clusters”, Transportation Research
Proceedia,t.25,pp.261‐278,2017.
[30]E. Valionienė, „Assessment of the Maritime Trasnport
SectorAttractivenessontheBasisofTheoreticalSeaport
Governance Model”, Mykolas Romeris University,
Vilnius,2020.
[31]B. Spigel, „The Relational Organization of
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems”,
Entrepreneurship Theory
andPractice,t.41,nr.1,pp.49‐72,2017.
[32]K.Eriksson,M.HellstronandR.E.Levvit,„Projectsin
theBusinessEcosystem:TheCaseofShortSeaShipping
andLogistics”,ProjectManagementJournal,t.50,nr.2,
pp.195‐209,2019.
[33]R. Mickienė and E. Valionien
ė, „Evaluation of the
InteractionbetweentheStateSeaportGovernanceModel
and Port Performance Indicators”, Forum Scientia
Oeconomia,t.5,nr.3,pp.27‐43,2017.
[34]E. Valionienė and B. Plačienė, „Resilience of Seaport
Ecosystem:TheoreticalApproachandFutureResearch”,
Transport Means 2022‐proceedings of the 26th
internationalscientificconference,pp.688‐693,2022.
[35]R. Gulati, P. Puranam and M. Tushman, „Meta‐
organization Design: Rethinking Design in
InterorganizationalandCommunityContexts”,Strategic
ManagementJournal,nr.Specialissue,pp.571‐586,2012.
[36]A. Tsvetkova, T. Nokelainen, M. Gustafsson and K.
Eriksson, „A Framework for Ecosystemic Strategizing
and
Change”, Practices for Network Management: In
SearchofCollaborativeAdvantage,PalgraveMacmillan,
2017,pp.275‐310.
[37]A.L. Hayes,E. C. Heery,E. Maroon, A. K. McLaskey
and C. C. Stawitz, „The Role of Scientific Expertise in
Local Adaptation to Projected Sea Level Rise”,
EnvironmentalScienceandPolicy,t.
87,pp.55‐63,2018.
[38]A. John, Z. Yang, R. Riahi and J. Wang, „A Risk
Assessment Approach to Improve the Resilience of a
Seaport System Using Bayesian Networks”, Ocean
Engineering,t.111,nr.2016,pp.136‐147,2016.
[39]B.E.AsbjornslettandH.Gisnaas,„CopingwithRiskin
Maritime Logistics.”, Risk, Reliability and Societal
Safety, London, Taylor and Francis Group, 2007, pp.
2669‐2675.
[40]O. Berle, B. E. Asbjornslett and J. B. Rice, „Formal
VulnerabilityAssessmentofa Maritime Transportation
System”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, t.
96,pp.696‐705,2011.
[41]K. Shaw, „Reframing” Resilience:
Challenges for
Planning Theory and Practice”, Planning Theory &
Practice,t.12,nr.2,pp.308‐312,2012.
[42]E. Valionienė and G. Kalvaitienė, „Theoretical
Modelling of Maritime Businessʹ Resilience
Enhancement Possibilities in a Volatile, Uncertain,
ComplexandAmbiguousEnvironment”,Proceedingsof
13th International Scientific ConferenceʺBusiness and
Management2023
ʺ,pp.52‐61,2023.
[43]A. Grainger and K. Achuthan, „Port Resilience: A
Primer”, Nottingham Business School, Nottingham,
2014.
[44]T.Nguyen,T. M. T. Dung, T.H. D.Truongand V. T.
Vinh,„ManagingDisruptionsintheMaritimeIndustry–
A Systematic Literature Review.”, Maritime Business
Review,pp.
2397‐3757,2021.