Since the early work on defining and analyzing resilience in domains such as engineering, ecology and psychology, the concept has gained significant traction in many fields of research and practice. It has also become a very powerful justification for various policy goals in the water sector, evident in terms like flood resilience, river resilience, and water resilience. At the same time, a substantial body of literature has developed that questions the resilience concept's systems ontology, natural science roots and alleged conservatism, and criticizes resilience thinking for not addressing power issues. In this study, we review these critiques with the aim to develop a framework for power-sensitive resilience analysis. We build on the three faces of power to conceptualize the power to define resilience. We structure our discussion of the relevant literature into five questions that need to be reflected upon when applying the resilience concept to social–hydrological systems. These questions address: (a) resilience of what, (b) resilience at what scale, (c) resilience to what, (d) resilience for what purpose, and (e) resilience for whom; and the implications of the political choices involved in defining these parameters for resilience building or analysis. Explicitly considering these questions enables making political choices explicit in order to support negotiation or contestation on how resilience is defined and used.
MULTIFILE
In 2015, the Object Management Group published the Decision Model and Notation with the goal to structure and connect business processes, decisions and underlying business logic. Practice shows that several vendors adopted the DMN standard and (started to) integrate the standard with their tooling. However, practice also shows that there are vendors who (consciously) deviate from the DMN standard while still trying to achieve the goal DMN is set out to reach. This research aims to 1) analyze and benchmark available tooling and their accompanied languages according to the DMN-standard and 2) understand the different approaches to modeling decisions and underlying business logic of these vendor specific languages. We achieved the above by analyzing secondary data. In total, 22 decision modelling tools together with their languages were analyzed. The results of this study reveal six propositions with regards to the adoption of DMN with regards to the sample of tools. These results could be utilized to improve the tools as well as the DMN standard itself to improve adoption. Possible future research directions comprise the improvement of the generalizability of the results by including more tools available and utilizing different methods for the data collection and analysis as well as deeper analysis into the generation of DMN directly from tool-native languages.
The design of healthcare facilities is a complex and dynamic process, which involves many stakeholders each with their own set of needs. In the context of healthcare facilities, this complexity exists at the intersection of technology and society because the very design of these buildings forces us to consider the technology–human interface directly in terms of living-space, ethics and social priorities. In order to grasp this complexity, current healthcare design models need mechanisms to help prioritize the needs of the stakeholders. Assistance in this process can be derived by incorporating elements of technology philosophy into existing design models. In this article, we develop and examine the Inclusive and Integrated Health Facilities Design model (In2Health Design model) and its foundations. This model brings together three existing approaches: (i) the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, (ii) the Model of Integrated Building Design, and (iii) the ontology by Dooyeweerd. The model can be used to analyze the needs of the various stakeholders, in relationship to the required performances of a building as delivered by various building systems. The applicability of the In2Health Design model is illustrated by two case studies concerning (i) the evaluation of the indoor environment for older people with dementia and (ii) the design process of the redevelopment of an existing hospital for psychiatric patients.
