Search Results For Adobe (387) [UPDATED]

The query builder lets you enter search terms and create content for the Asset Share page. When you edit the query builder, you also get to determine how many search results are displayed per page, which asset editor opens when you double-click an asset, the path the query searches, and customizes nodetypes.

Search results for Adobe (387)

We present the results of research carried out among water utilities in Poland during the first Covid-19 lockdown, focusing on infrastructure risk, enterprise risk, information safety risk, supply chain risk and new technology risk.

In the context of these results, it is interesting to see infrastructure risk as not being significant. The results of other studies on infrastructure risk suggest that the demand for infrastructure and services is growing rapidly in both developing and developed countries (Gupta & Verma 2020), though Wang et al. indicate that in relation to infrastructure risk, it is difficult to accurately understand, predict and control the overall situation and development trends (Wang et al. 2016). Also, in the water sector, research shows the importance of infrastructure risk management and infrastructure management (Amadi-Echendu et al. 2010; Marlow et al. 2015). The lesser importance that the survey respondents attached to infrastructure risk may be related to the fact that under Covid-19 conditions, the infrastructure for water utilities, which includes buildings and equipment (Engemann 2019), is not at risk, and thus management of other risk categories becomes more essential.

With regards to the validity of the combination of supply chain risk and enterprise risk, it should be noted that the results of our research are consistent with the results related to Industry 4.0 (Alabi et al. 2019; Kijak 2021), which has a significant impact on the development of water utilities. Faisal et al. suggest that supply chains can be seen as an example of an inter-organisational configuration, where the coordination of logistics processes between organisations is key to above-average results (Faisal et al. 2007). In turn, Tiwari suggests that Industry 4.0 supports the integration of supply chain flows, especially those related to information and physical resources flows (Tiwari 2020). A systematic literature review of the interaction between supply chain risk management and information technology has allowed Fischer-Preßler et al. to see that the increase in supply chain disruption, a major source of risk for both business organisations and consumers, is increasing the importance of resource investments (Fischer-Preßler et al. 2020).

During a crisis, companies experience an increased level of risk, which has a direct impact on their ability to survive. The Covid-19 pandemic in particular has triggered a discussion on the factors that limit the risks borne by companies. The results of our research suggest that the most common actions and managerial responses taken by water utilities to minimise different types of risk were ensuring information security, reducing investments and protecting the workforce from getting infected. Only a small number of water utilities decided to close down part of the company, make employees redundant or search for new partners in the supply chain (Chudziński et al. 2020).

Although the Engemann concept structures risks in five dimensions (infrastructure risk, business risk, information security risk, supply chain risk and new technology risk), studies have shown that the most important categories of risk facing companies are supply chain risk, new technology risk, business risk and information risk. Our research among water utilities in Poland identified a slightly different set of types of risk. While supply chain risk fell into one category with enterprise risk, the research demonstrated two other categories of risk critical to the survival of a company in crisis situations, namely company liquidity risk, addressed by implementing new technologies, as well as human resource risk. The results of the investigation suggest that it is liquidity risk that can be considered the most important for the survival of a company in a crisis. This is depicted in the modified dimensions of the Engemann approach presented in Figure 1.

The issues indicated above could be addressed in future research. Firstly, a more longitudinal approach to the water sector could be adopted. We are currently analysing results from the second lockdown in October 2020, as well as researching the current (March 2021) lockdown. It would be interesting to compare the data and see how the structure and composition of risk management have changed in the water utilities. It would also be possible to carry out similar research to examine the structure and composition of risk management after the coronavirus crisis. For future research, a revised version of the questionnaire could be used, and more precise scales for measuring responses minimising risk could be implemented. Overall, this study represents an attempt to develop new knowledge and understanding of managerial responses aimed at minimising risk in water utilities during unexpected crises. Assuming that a similar situation could occur in future pandemics, this paper may help guide future research in this regard. 041b061a72