Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Author name / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 1
Author name / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 1
7th International Conference Procedia
on Building Resilience;
Engineering Using
Author776–783
212 (2018) name scientific
/ Procedia knowledge
Engineering to inform policy
00 (2017) 000–000 1
Author name / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 1
and practice in disaster risk reduction, ICBR2017,
7th International Conference on Building Resilience; 27 – 29
Using
Author name November
scientific
/ Procedia 2017,
knowledge
Engineering Bangkok, Thailand
to inform policy
00 (2017) 000–000 1
7th
and International
practice in Conference
disaster risk on Building
reduction, Resilience;
ICBR2017, 27 Using
– 29 scientific knowledge
November 2017, to inform
Bangkok, policy
Thailand
7th
andInternational Conference
practice in disaster on Building
risk reduction, Resilience;
ICBR2017, 27Using scientific knowledge
– 29 November 2017, Bangkok, to inform policy
Thailand
"Built
7th
and Environment
International
practice Conference
in disaster Flood
on Building
risk reduction, Resilience
Resilience;
ICBR2017, –Capability
27Using Maturity
scientific knowledge
29 November 2017, Bangkok,
and practice in disaster risk reduction, ICBR2017, 27 – 29 November 2017, Bangkok, Thailand
to Model"
inform policy
Thailand
"Built
"Built Environment
Environment Flood
Flooda*, Resilience
Resilience Capability
Capability
b
Maturity
Maturitya
Model"
Model"
"Built Environment
Onaopepo
"Built Environment Flood
Adeniyi
Flood Resilience
Srinath PereraCapability
a Resilience Capability b
, Kanchana Maturity
Ginige
Maturitya
Model"
Model"
Onaopepo Adeniyi a*, Srinath Perera b , Kanchana Ginige a
Onaopepo Adeniyia*, Srinath Pererab, Kanchana Ginigea
a
Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Northumbria University, United Kingdom
b
Onaopepo Adeniyi *, Srinath Perera , Kanchana Ginige
School ofa Computing Engineering aand Mathematics, WesternbSydney University, Sydney, Australia
Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Northumbria University, United Kingdom a
b Onaopepo Adeniyi *, Srinath Perera , Kanchana Ginige
School
a
of Faculty of Engineering
Computing andand
Engineering Environment, Northumbria
Mathematics, University,
Western Sydney United Kingdom
University, Sydney, Australia
a
b
School ofaFaculty of Engineering
Computing andand
Engineering Environment, Northumbria
Mathematics, University,
Western Sydney United Kingdom
University, Sydney, Australia
b Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Northumbria University, United Kingdom
School of Computing Engineering and Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia
b
Abstract School of Computing Engineering and Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia

Abstract
Capabilities are required for managing the impact of disasters on the built environment. These capabilities need to
Abstract
Abstract
be continually
Capabilities
Abstract areimproved
required and there should
for managing thebe a wayofofdisasters
impact assessingonthem. Thisenvironment.
the built paper focusesThese
on thecapabilities
developmentneedoftoa
Capabilities
built
be areimproved
environment
continually required for
flood and managing
resilience thebeimpact
capability
there should ofofdisasters
maturity
a way modelonthem.
assessing the micro,
for built
Thisenvironment.and These
smallfocuses
paper on thecapabilities
medium-sized needoftoa
enterprises
development
Capabilities
be continually
(MSMEs). Theareimproved
required
study for managing
and
utilised there
the should
concept theofimpact
be a wayofofdisasters
capability assessing
maturity on the built
them. This
modelling environment.
topaper focuses
achieve its These
on
aim. capabilities
the
The development
model needoftoa
developed
built
be environment
Capabilities
continually flood and
areimproved
required resilience
for managing
there capability
shouldthebe maturity
impact
a way modelonthem.
ofofdisasters
assessing for
the micro,
built
This smallfocuses
and These
environment.
paper medium-sized
on enterprises
capabilities
the development needoftoa
built environment
identifies the
Thebuilt flood resilience
environment theflood capability
resilience maturity model
capabilities for
of MSMEs. micro,
This small and
was focuses medium-sized
achieved enterprises
(MSMEs).
be continually
built environment study
improved utilised
flood and there
resilienceconcept
should of
becapability
capabilitya way of maturity
assessing
maturity model modelling
them.
for This
micro,topaper
achieve
small and onbyThe
its aim. identifying
the development
medium-sized
relevant
model enterprises
developed
of a
(MSMEs).
capabilities
identifies The
thefrom study
builtthe utilised the
literature
environment andconcept
mapping
flood of accordingly
capability
resilience maturity
with
capabilities modelling
ofmaturity
MSMEs. leveltocharacteristics
This achieve its aim.
was achieved byThe
prior tomodel developed
verification
identifying and
relevant
built environment
(MSMEs). The studyflood resilience
utilised the capability
concept of maturity
capability model
maturity for micro,
modelling to small
achieve and
its medium-sized
aim. The model enterprises
developed
identifies
refinement.the
capabilities built
This
from environment
paper
the is limited
literature flood
and to theresilience
mapping capabilities
development of the of MSMEs.
conceptual This
versionwas
of achieved
the model.by identifying
The flood relevant
resilience
(MSMEs).
identifies The
the study
built utilised the
environment concept
flood of accordingly
capability
resilience withofmaturity
maturity
capabilities MSMEs. level
modelling tocharacteristics
This achieve
was prior
its aim.
achieved byThetomodel
verification and
developed
identifying relevant
capabilities
capability
refinement. from
maturity
This the
paperliterature
modelis limitedand
is aimed mapping
to at
the accordingly
providing
development of with
an assessment,
the maturity level
improvement
conceptual characteristics
version and
of prior
benchmarking
the model. tomethodology
The verification
flood and
for
resilience
identifies the
capabilities built
from environment
the literature flood
andto resilience
mapping capabilities
accordingly with of MSMEs. This
maturity level was achieved
characteristics by identifying
priorThe relevant
to verification and
refinement.
built This
environment
capability maturity paper
flood is limited
resilience the development
capabilities. of the conceptual version of the model. flood resilience
capabilities
refinement. from themodel
This paper is aimed
literature
is limited at
theproviding
andtomapping an assessment,
accordingly
development of with improvement
maturity
the conceptual level and
of benchmarking
characteristics
version tomethodology
priorThe
the model. verification for
and
flood resilience
capability
built maturity
environment model
flood is aimed
resilience at providing
capabilities. an assessment, improvement and benchmarking methodology for
refinement.
capability This paper is limited to the development of the conceptual version of the model. The flood resilience
© 2017
built Thematurity model
Authors.flood
environment Published is by
aimed
resilience at providing
Elsevier Ltd.
capabilities. an assessment, improvement and benchmarking methodology for
capability
built maturity
environment
Peer-review
model
flood is aimed
resilience
under responsibility
at providing
thecapabilities.
of Elsevier
scientific
an assessment, improvement and benchmarking methodology for
© 2017
built The Authors.
environment Published
flood by
resilience Ltd. committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
capabilities.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of Elsevier
the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
© 2017
© 2018 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd.flood,
Peer-review
Keywords: under
"Built responsibility
environment, of the
business, scientific
capabilities, committee of the
resilience"the 7th International
International Conference on
on Building Resilience.
Resilience.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of
Peer-review
© 2017 The under
Authors.responsibility
Published of
by the scientific
Elsevier Ltd. committee of the 7th
7th International Conference
Conference on Building
Building Resilience.
Keywords: "Built environment, business, capabilities, flood, resilience"
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
Keywords: "Built environment, business, capabilities, flood, resilience"
Keywords: "Built environment, business, capabilities, flood, resilience"
1.
Introduction
Keywords: "Built environment, business, capabilities, flood, resilience"
1.
Introduction
1.
Introduction
Towards achieving organisational goals which include managing and surviving crises [1, 2], Yen-Tsang, Csillag
1.
Introduction
[3] describedachieving
1.
Introduction
Towards the needorganisational
for capabilities andwhich
goals its importance in coordinating
include managing a set ofcrises
and surviving activities
[1, 2],toYen-Tsang,
achieve particular
Csillag
Towards
goals. The achievingoforganisational
capability a firm is a goals whichofinclude
combination managing
competencies, and surviving
skills, resources, crises [1, 2],
strengths, Yen-Tsang,
societal network Csillag
used
[3] Towards
describedachieving
the needorganisational
for capabilities and
goals its
which importance in
include managingcoordinating a
and survivingset of activities
crises to achieve
[1, 2],toYen-Tsang, particular
Csillag
[3]
to described
coordinate
Towards the
a need
set
achieving of for capabilities
activities
organisational to and
achieve
goals its importance
particular in
goals coordinating
[3, 4], this a set
includesof activities
disaster achieve
resilience. particular
UNISDR [4]
goals.
[3]
goals.
The capability
described
The the needof
capability of
a firm
for
a capabilities
firm is a andwhich
is a combination
combination
ofinclude
its importance
of
managing
competencies, and surviving
skills,
in coordinating
competencies, skills, a set ofcrises
resources,
resources,
[1, 2],
strengths,
activities
strengths, toYen-Tsang,
societal network
achieve
societal
Csillag
used
particular
network used
submitted
[3] that
described thecapacity
need can also be referred to as capability. The effective deployment of capabilities is still very
to coordinate
goals. a set
The capability
to coordinate of for
of capabilities
activities
a firm is ato and itsparticular
achieve
tocombination
importance in coordinating
goals
of competencies, [3, skills,
4], this a set ofstrengths,
includes
resources, activities to achieve
disaster resilience.
societal particular
UNISDR
network [4]
used
low,
goals.flooding
The
submitted isacapacity
set of
still
capability
that of activities
causing
a
canfirmsignificant
alsois a
be
achieve
physical
combination
referred to
particular
damage
of
as
goals
competencies,
capability.
[3, skills,
to business
The
4], premises
this
effective
includes
resources,
deployment
disaster resilience.
[5]. strengths,
Previously,
of Boshernetwork
societal
capabilities [6]
is
UNISDR
declared
still
[4]
used
very
to coordinate
submitted that acapacity
set of activities
can also to referred
be achieve toparticular
as goals The
capability. [3, 4], this includes
effective deployment disaster
of resilience. isUNISDR
capabilities still [4]
very
the need to build
to coordinate capabilities
acapacity
set of for property
activities to referred
achieve resilience beyond physical attributes of the property, a similar need was
low,
low,
flooding
submitted thatis
flooding is
still
still
causing significant
can also
causing be
significant toparticular
physical
physical asdamage goals
capability.
damage to
[3, 4],
to business
The
business
this includes
premises
effective
premises
[5].
deployment
[5].
disaster
Previously, resilience.
Bosher
of capabilities
Previously, Bosher
[6]
[6]
declared
isUNISDR
still [4]
very
declared
identified
submitted
the need toby
thatUN
build ESCAP
capacity
capabilitiesandalso
can AITbe
for [7]. It should
referred
property to be capability.
as
resilience noted
beyondthatphysical
the
The ability of the
effective built
deployment
attributes of environment
the of tosimilar
capabilities
property, a withstand,
is still
need resist
very
was
low,need
the flooding
to the is still
build causing significant
capabilities foraffects
property physical
resiliencedamage
beyond to business
physical premises [5].
attributesDespite Previously,
of the property, Bosher
a similar[6]need
declared
was
and
low, absorb
flooding isimpact
still of and
causingflood [7]. Itthe
significant speedbe
physical ofnoted
recovery
damage of the
to business business.
premises [5]. the call for
Previously, the building and
identified
the need
identifiedtoby
by
UN
build
UN
ESCAP
capabilities
ESCAP and
AITproperty
for
AIT [7]. It
should
resilience
should be beyond
noted
that
that
the
the
ability
physical of the built
attributes
ability of the of the
built property,Bosher
environment
environment ato
to
[6]need
similar declared
withstand,
withstand,
resist
was
resist
enhancement
the need tobytheof
build capabilities,
capabilities no
for study has
property developed
resilience a methodology
beyond for assessing the maturity of capabilities for
and
and
absorb
identified
absorb UNimpact
the ESCAP
impact
of and
of
flood
flood
affects
AIT [7]. Itthe
affects the
speedbeofnoted
should
speed of thatphysical
recovery
recovery
of the
the
of
attributes
business.
ability
the business.
of the
of the Despite
built
Despite
property,
the call for
environment
the call
atosimilar
for
the needresist
building
withstand,
the building
was
and
and
enhancing
identified built environment flood resilience and none has presented the specific capabilities for enhancing the flood
and absorbbythe
enhancement
enhancement
UN ESCAP
ofimpact
ofimpact of and
capabilities,
capabilities,floodnoAIT
noaffects
[7]. It
study
study theshould
has
has speed beofnoted
developed
developed
that the
a methodology
recovery ability
of the
a methodology
forofassessing
the Despite
business. built environment
for assessing
thethe
the call forto
maturity
maturity
withstand,
ofthe buildingresist
capabilities
ofthe
capabilities
for
and
for
resilience
and absorb
enhancing of the
the
built built environment.
of
environment flood
flood Although,
affects the
resilience speed
andstudies
of
none have
recovery
has been
of conducted
the
presented business.
the on Despite
specific flood mitigation
the
capabilities call
for measures
for
enhancing generally
building
the and
flood
enhancement
enhancing ofenvironment
built capabilities, flood
no study has developed
resilience and none ahas
methodology
presented forspecific
the assessing the maturity
capabilities for of capabilities
enhancing the for
flood
enhancement
resilience
enhancing of ofenvironment
the
built capabilities,
built environment.no study
flood has developed
Although,
resilience andstudies ahas
none have methodology theforspecific
been conducted
presented assessing
on flood the maturity
mitigation
capabilities of capabilities
measures
for enhancing generally
the floodfor
resilience
enhancing of the
built built environment.
environment flood Although,
resilience andstudies
none have
has been conducted
presented the on
specific flood mitigation
capabilities for measures
enhancing generally
the flood
resilience of the built environment. Although, studies have been conducted on flood mitigation measures generally
resilience of the built environment. Although, studies have been conducted on flood mitigation measures generally
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +447448388401
E-mail address: o.adeniyi@northumbria.ac.uk
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +447448388401
* Corresponding
E-mail address:author. Tel.: +447448388401
o.adeniyi@northumbria.ac.uk
* Corresponding
1877-7058 © 2018author.
© 2017
E-mail address: The
The Tel.: +447448388401
Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier
o.adeniyi@northumbria.ac.uk Ltd. Ltd.
* Corresponding
Peer-review
E-mail address:
Peer-review under author. Tel.: +447448388401
underresponsibility
responsibility of the scientific
o.adeniyi@northumbria.ac.uk
of the scientific committee
committee of theof7th
the 7th International
International Conference
Conference on Resilience.

on Building Building Resilience
1877-7058 © 2017 The
E-mail address: Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
o.adeniyi@northumbria.ac.uk
10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.100
1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.

1877-7058
Peer-review©under
2017responsibility
The Authors. of
Published by Elsevier
the scientific Ltd. of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.

committee
1877-7058
Peer-review©under
2017responsibility
The Authors. of
Published by Elsevier
the scientific Ltd. of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.

committee
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.

 Onaopepo Adeniyi et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 776–783 777
2 Onaopepo Adeniyi et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

(Asgary et al., 2012; Bhattacharya-Mis & Lamond, 2014; CIRIA, 2010), this study is significant because it focuses
specifically on capabilities for flood resilience in the context of built environment.

2.
Literature review

2.1.
Flooding and business organisations

The Royal Institute of British Architects identified six mechanisms of flooding [8], the mechanisms are tidal,
fluvial, ground water, pluvial, flooding from sewers, and flooding from human-made infrastructures. The magnitude
of damage from whichever type of flood is dependent on some factors, among these are the depth of inundation,
duration of inundation, the rate of rising, the velocity of flow, flooding frequency, the presence of debris, property
type, age, construction material and building use [9-18].The possession of relevant capabilities by an organisation
will help the management of some of the factors and simply control the damage influence of some. Technically,
flood water is controlled at the source, pathway and the receptor points [19]. The focus of this study is the receptor,
business organisations fall in this category. Business organisations are classified based on turnover and number of
employees, this study focuses on micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSME) i.e organisations with 1 – 249
employees [20]. The focus on MSMEs is simply because of the significance of this class of business to the economy
of a nation. Currently, MSMEs are also highly vulnerable to disruptions basically because of the limited human and
financial resources and limited risk management capability [21, 22].

2.2.
Flood resilience capabilities

UNISDR [4] submitted that capacity can also be described as capability and capacity refers to infrastructure,
physical facilities, institutions, societal coping mechanisms, human knowledge, skills, social relationships, as well as
leadership and management. Similarly, [3] described the capability of a firm as a combination of competencies,
skills and abilities used to coordinate a set of tasks or activities to achieve a goal. Capabilities determine the
preparatory strength, coping response, absorptive ability, and adaptive ability; these abilities influence the disaster
resilience of a system in a disaster situation. Towards achieving the aim of this study, twenty-six capabilities were
identified from the literature. The capabilities extracted are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Key Capability Areas and brief descriptions

SN Key Capability Areas and brief descriptions Literature source
1 Understanding of flood risk to property - [19, 23]
This is expected to lead to a detailed mitigation survey.
2 Planning or review for a flood resilience scheme - This is expected to lead to [19, 23]
a clear, workable plan and schedule for a flood mitigation/resilience scheme.
3 Survey of property - This is expected to result to a detailed design [19, 23]
specification for the property.
4 Acquisition of relevant facilities - Understanding of the purpose and [23]
function of flood resilience facilities.
5 Installation and Post-flood management scheme relationships - Management [23]
of installation period and preparations for potential disruption. Post
installation relationship management with supplier and installer.
6 Operation and Maintenance - Operation, storage and maintenance [23]
requirement. Effective response readiness.
7 Organisation of disaster scenario simulations - Participation in drills and [19, 24]
flood scenario simulations. It creates physical and mental alertness.
8 Built environment related safety precautions – Switch-off power or power [19]
banks, fastening water tank and external furniture etc. To prevent
complications.




 Onaopepo Adeniyi et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 3
778 Onaopepo Adeniyi et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 776–783

Table 1 cont’d
SN Key Capability Areas and brief descriptions Literature source
9 Retaining the interest of customers in goods and services [25]
10 Turn-over and cash flow management - Fund availability [25, 26]
11 Insurance adequacy and management - Knowledge and existence of [19, 25]
insurance. Even if steps have been taken to protect a property from flooding,
there is still need for flood insurance
12 Transport/delivery system - Access preservation (Accessibility) [25, 26]
13 Utility supply - Continuity of supply through preservation of existing system [24, 25]
or availability of alternatives.
14 Communication system - Continuity of supply through preservation of [25]
existing system or availability of alternatives.
15 Flood proof store/flood proof protection for flood stock and contents (Stocks [25]
and equipment) - In-house protection of some contents
16 Record/Business data management - Business information and data policies [19, 25, 26]
and techniques. Accessibility of documents relating to premises
repair/renovation.
17 Management of disruption to production/service/operations/processes - [19, 25]
Culture and attitude to disruptive events. Preservation of right frame of
mind.
18 Crisis response budget (Income generation and cash-flow management) - [25-27]
Availability of fund for managing damages caused by a flood on one’s
premises.
19 General awareness and commitment to resilience - Training and awareness
creation and appreciation of the need for built environment resilience within [24, 25]
the organisation. Appreciation of the need for built environment resilience.
20 Statutory compliance - Compliance with existing property-related standards. [19]
21 Paper records management - Accessibility of documents relating to premises [28]
repair/renovation.
22 Decision making without recourse to superior in emergency situations - [24]
Authority to make decisions has been given to staff. Quick response to
people activated prevention and protection facilities.
23 Definition of roles and responsibilities and how it changes in disaster [24]
situations - Understanding of Information flow – aids decision making
24 Post event operation, analysis and management - Plans for adapting and [19]
performing better in the future, innovativeness, lessons learnt – view sharing
and documentation.
25 System and protocols for mobilising external/support resources when needed [24]
(Network strength) - the effective mobilisation of resources when needed
e.g. contractors to assist in preserving equipment from flood water,
firefighters etc.
26 Physical resilience or adaptability of premises – Sophistication of adaptation [29]
measures. Accessibility or partial usability of property. Flexible and
distributed workplace enables employees, suppliers and customers’
collaboration during crises.

The capabilities were used to develop a conceptual capability maturity model. The capability maturity model
concept is discussed in the next section.
 Onaopepo Adeniyi et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 776–783 779
4 Onaopepo Adeniyi et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

2.3.
Capability maturity model (CMM) concept

The maturity of a process is defined as "the extent to which a specific process is explicitly defined, managed,
measured, controlled, and effective" [30]. Capability maturity model is simply a concept that defines the key
practices that describe the respective successive levels of process or capability maturity. In terms of maturity, the
attributes at a lower maturity level always better describe a system or process than the attributes in a succeeding
level. Therefore, the increase in maturity across levels remains evident. The Capability Maturity Model (CMM)
developed by [30] metamorphosed into Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) [31]. The CMMI emerged
because of complications encountered in applying multiple models across an organisation. The complications
include the need for training on several maturity models, overlaps, and some sort of confusions resulting from
duplications [31]. CMMI covers 22 process areas that are a cluster of related practice directed towards fulfilling the
desired goal [31]. The model contains five maturity levels presented in a stepwise progressive manner and labelled 1
to 5, 1 represents ‘Initial’, 2 represents ‘Managed’, 3 represents ‘Defined’, 4 represents ‘Quantitatively managed’,
and 5 represents ‘Optimising’. It should be noted that the CMMI is simply an integration of multiple CMM, the
underlying concept is the same.
The sample characteristics of maturity levels are presented as follows:
Level 1 – Adhoc (referred to as ‘Initial’ in CMMI) - The process is best described as ad hoc and it is occasionally
chaotic. Only a few processes are defined and success depends on individual effort [30, 32]. Level 2 – Repeatable
(referred to as ‘Managed’ in CMMI) - This level is named repeatable, there are project management processes to
track cost, schedule and functionality. There are process disciplines aimed at assisting a repeat of success on similar
projects [30, 32]. Level 3 – Defined (referred to as ‘Defined’ in CMMI) - At this level, activities are standardised,
documented, moulded into a standard process. The standard organisation processes are applied on all projects [30,
32]. Level 4 – Managed (referred to as ‘Quantitatively managed’ in CMMI) - Process and product quality are
measured and documented; they are well understood and controlled in quantitative terms [30, 32]. Level 5 –
Optimizing (referred to as ‘Optimizing’ in CMMI) - The processes are improved continuously using quantitative
feedbacks and innovative skills. Concepts and best practices are embedded in all legal and operational frameworks
[30, 32]. The full list of characteristics extracted for maturity level 1 is presented in Table 2 below. Tables like Table
2 were produced for the remaining maturity levels (Level 2 to level 5) with appropriate maturity level
characteristics.

Table 2 Maturity level characteristics (Level 1 – Initial)

Reference code Characteristic Literature sources

ML1In/C1 Summary of general resilience status - Very poor [24]
ML1In/C2 Organisations are highly reactive [24]
ML1In/C3 Engage in very little planning [24]
ML1In/C4 Yet to recognize/identify /task/process/resilience as [24, 33]
strategically important
ML1In/C5 No centrally coordinated support function [33]
ML1In/C6 If policy exists, it is not enforced [33]
ML1In/C7 Processes or related activities are generally chaotic [31, 34-39]
ML1In/C8 There are no formal processes as there is no stable [31, 35, 40, 41]
environment to support them. No standardised
procedures.
ML1In/C9 Organisation pays lip service to the activity or process [32]
ML1In/C10 Existing processes are abandoned in times of crises. [31, 42]
Successes cannot be sustained.




 Onaopepo Adeniyi et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 5
780 Onaopepo Adeniyi et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 776–783

Table 2 cont’d


Reference code Characteristic Literature sources
ML1In/C11 Success depends on individuals’ efforts. Individuals act, [36, 38-43]
no institutional coordination
ML1In/C12 No attempt to identify the benefit of the activity or [32, 44]
process
ML1In/C13 No understanding of principles/task/process [32, 41]
ML1In/C14 No tools or databases relevant to the process are in use. [32, 44]
ML1In/C15 Budgets and schedules documented in plans are usually [39, 42, 45]
exceeded.
ML1In/C16 Unaware of the need for tasks to be undertaken. [32]
ML1In/C17 Short-term focused strategies [41]
ML1In/C18 Approaches/methods are applied on case-by-case basis [41]
ML1In/C19 No monitoring or reporting [41]
ML1In/C20 Use of basic and narrow range technology. Single and [44]
simpler products.
Note: The reference code reads “Maturity level 1, initial, characteristic 1 to 20”.

The procedure for developing the capability maturity model using the identified capabilities for flood resilience and
the maturity level characteristics are explained in the research methodology section.

3.
Research methodology

The Capability Maturity Modelling concept was adopted in this study. The generic and specific goals and
practices were carefully mapped in the context of disaster resilience to the capability areas (Table 1) identified in
this study. The generic and specific goals and practices make up the maturity level characteristics referred to in
Figure 1and presented in the conceptual framework (Table 3). This study commenced by identifying a set of
capabilities for enhancing the flood resilience of the built environment. The capabilities were used to develop a
conceptual capability maturity model (Table 3). As presented in Table 2, each of the maturity level characteristics
was assigned reference codes. A mapping exercise that involves the alignment of each of the identified maturity
level characteristics (Table 2) with relevant capability areas (Table 1) was done. This resulted to the production of
maturity level characteristics for maturity level 1 for each of the capability areas. Tables like Table 2 were also
produced for maturity levels 2 to 5 and the mapping process was repeated for all the identified capability areas and
maturity levels 2-5. Table 3 presents the outcome of this exercise on one capability areas for maturity levels 1 - 5.
Further processes leading to the production of the final capability maturity model will be reported in the future. In
Figure 1 (procedure flowchart), the full rectangles are processes, the parallelogram is an output while the rectangle
made with dots signifies future works.

Identification of built
environment flood Mapping of maturity The conceptual Further works:
resilience capability areas level characteristics with capability Model refinement
and maturity level capability areas maturity model and validation
characteristics

Figure 1The model development procedure

 Onaopepo Adeniyi et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 776–783 781
6 Onaopepo Adeniyi et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

4.
The conceptual model

The process for developing the conceptual built environment flood resilience capability maturity model was
described in the methodology section, the model is presented in Table 3. The model contains seven columns and 26
rows (Only one is shown in Table 3), the first column is for serial identification of each capability area (SN), and the
second column is the list of key capability areas. The remaining five columns describe maturity levels 1 to 5 for
each capability area (Table 3). Column 2 contains the name of the capability areas as well as the coverage and the
goal of each capability area. The maturity level characteristics for each capability area contains generic and specific
goals and practices. The strength of an organisation on each capability area is expected to improve across maturity
level 1 to 5. The maturity of an organisation on each of the capability areas is established by comparing the
organisation with the descriptions in each of the maturity levels 1 to 5. The most suitable among the descriptions
contained in maturity levels 1 to 5 is the maturity of the organisation on that capability area.
The code references in the current model (Table 3) shows the maturity level characteristic (Table 2) that is
mapped with a specific or generic goal or activity related to a capability area. This study was aimed at providing a
benchmarking and profiling methodology for the capabilities of businesses towards achieving the flood resilience of
their built environment. It should be noted that the activities that defines maturity are contained in the maturity level
characteristics presented against each capability area. The progression in superiority across the maturity levels can
be noticed (See Table 3).
Table 3 Conceptual built environment flood resilience capability maturity model
Capability levels
SN Key Capability Areas Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Initial Repeatable Defined Managed Optimizing
1 Understanding of flood Yet to recognise Individual Importance is High Operating
risk to property the strategic department or recognised recognition of environment is
importance of function makes ML3De/C2. importance well-understood
Coverage - Awareness of climate and flood effort but they are Tools, ML4Ma/C2. ML5Op/C2.
the type, frequency of projection in the not shared templates and The need for They anticipate
flood. Knowledge of area. ML1In/C4. ML2Re/C3. A relevant processes/tasks and respond to
climate projection and No formal senior manager databases are are highly uncertainty
flood projection in the processes are may recognise the available recognised and ML5Op/C4.
area. Periodic assessment applied as there is importance but ML3De/C10. supported with Quantitative
is necessary - physical no stable resources are not Standard stated means approaches are
vulnerability evaluation environment to allocated processes are of used to
and water entry channel support them ML2Re/C4. established improvement understand
survey. Initial ML1In/C8. No Simple tools and and improved ML4Ma/C9. internal and
consideration of remedial attempt to identify templates are used over time Tools, external
measures Understanding the benefit for some activities ML3De/C11. database and variations
of hazard consequences ML1In/C12. No ML2Re/C10. Relevant records are ML5Op/C6.
to the organisation and understanding of Importance is actions are available for High recognition
all assets. principles recognised. They coordinated statistical and of importance,
ML1In/C13. No are communicated with managerial lessons learnt are
Goal - This is expected to tools or database verbally (within stakeholders analysis captured and fed
lead to a detailed ML1In/C14. the department) (government ML4Ma/C14. back into the
mitigation survey. With Unaware of the ML2Re/C13. and others) The risk is system
information on mitigation need ML1In/C16. Heavy reliance on ML3De/C17. identified ML5Op/C10.
and protection that is knowledge of Training ML4Ma/C17. High level of
needed. This might individuals programme awareness
influence other decisions. ML2Re/C16 for capacity ML5Op/C20.
The effect or influence of development Active use of
surrounding businesses exists information
will also be established. ML3De/C18. ML5Op/C21.

5.
Conclusion

The specific capabilities for enhancing the flood resilience of the built environment of a Micro, Small and
medium sized enterprise were extracted from the literature. The capabilities were sourced based on the definitions
and description of ‘capability’ by UNISDR (2009) and Yen-Tsang (2012) among others. According to the
 Onaopepo Adeniyi et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 7
782 Onaopepo Adeniyi et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 776–783

aforementioned studies, capabilities are strengths, physical means, knowledge, resources, leadership, and skills
among other attributes that can be deployed to achieve a specific goal. The goal in this context is the flood resilience
of the built environment. Using the concept of capability maturity modelling, the capabilities were used to produce a
capability maturity model. This study has provided a valuable information on flood resilience capability
enhancement. The identified flood resilience capability areas, though subject to consolidation in the continuation of
this study, can be adopted for planning purposes by business organisations and for use by researchers in subsequent
studies. Also, the approach adopted i.e. the application of capability maturity model (CMM) methodology in disaster
resilience with a focus on the built environment flood resilience is novel. This has expanded the boundary of CMM
application and has contributed to the body of knowledge on capability enhancement in disaster resilience.
Currently, the model clearly provides an improvement blueprint that business organisations and regulatory
bodies can consider for planning and MSME profiling purposes. The maturity model will be refined, improved and
reported in the future. It will be a viable capability evaluation and improvement model.

References

1. Grewal, R. and P. Tansuhaj, Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: The role of
market orientation and strategic flexibility. Journal of marketing, 2001. 65(2): p. 67-80.
2. O’Regan, N. and A. Ghobadian, The importance of capabilities for strategic direction and performance.
Management Decision, 2004. 42(2): p. 292-313.
3. Yen-Tsang, C., J.M. Csillag, and J. Siegler, Theory of reasoned action for continuous improvement
capabilities: a behavioral approach. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 2012. 52(5): p. 546-564.
4. UNISDR, UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. 2009, Geneva: UNISDR. 20.
5. Norrington, H. and K. Underwood, Climate change and small businesses: How directors are responding to
the challenges of climate change - Research Findings. 2008, Guildford: Climate South East.
6. Bosher, L., The need for built in resilience, in Hazards and the built environment- Attaining built-in
resilience, L. Bosher, Editor. 2008, Routledge: Oxon. p. 3-19.
7. UN ESCAP and AIT, Integrating environmental sustainability and disaster resilience in building codes.
2012, Bangkok: UN ESCAP.
8. RICS, Flooding: issues of concern to RICS surveyors and valuers (Residential property). 2015, London:
RICS.
9. Büchele, B., et al., Flood-risk mapping: contributions towards an enhanced assessment of extreme events
and associated risks. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2006. 6(4): p. 485-503.
10. CIRIA, Improving the flood performance of buildings: Flood resilient construction. 2007, London: RIBA
Publishing.
11. Citeau, J., A New Control Concept in the Oise Catchment Area: Definition and Assessment of Flood
Compatible Agricultural Activities, in FIG working week 2003: Paris, France.
12. Dutta, D., S. Herath, and K. Musiake, A mathematical model for flood loss estimation. Journal of
Hydrology, 2003. 277(1–2): p. 24-49.
13. Hoes, O. and W. Schuurmans, Flood standards or risk analyses for polder management in the Netherlands.
Irrigation and Drainage, 2006. 55(S1): p. S113-S119.
14. Kreibich, H. and A.H. Thieken, Assessment of damage caused by high groundwater inundation. Water
Resources Research, 2008. 44(9): p. W09409.
15. Merz, B., et al., Review article" Assessment of economic flood damage". Natural Hazards and Earth System
Science, 2010. 10(8): p. 1697-1724.
16. Nicholas, J., G.D. Holt, and D.G. Proverbs, Towards standardising the assessment of flood damaged
properties in the UK. Structural Survey, 2001. 19(4): p. 163-172.
17. Penning-Rowsell, E., et al., The benefits of flood and coastal risk management: a handbook of assessment
techniques. 2005, Middlesex: Middlesex University Press.
18. Pitt, M., The Pitt Review - Learning Lessons from the 2007 floods. 2008.
19. CIRIA, Flood resilience and resistance of critical infrastructure. 2010, London: CIRIA
20. Ward, M. and C. Rhodes, Small businesses and the UK economy, in Standard Note: SN/EP/6078. , O.f.N.
 Onaopepo Adeniyi et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 776–783 783
8 Onaopepo Adeniyi et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

Statistics, Editor. 2014, House of Commons Library: London.

21. Bannock, G., The economics and management of small business: an international perspective. 2005, Hove:
Psychology Press.
22. UNISDR, From Shared Risk to Shared Value -The Business Case for Disaster Risk Reduction. Global
Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. 2013.
23. White, I., et al., Six Steps to Property Level Flood Resilience - Guidance for property owners. 2013,
Manchester: BRE.
24. Stephenson, A., Benchmarking the resilience of organisations in Civil and Natural Resources Engineering.
2010, University of Canterbury, New Zealand: Canterbury.
25. Wedawatta, G., Resilience of Construction SMEs to Extreme Weather Events, in School of the Built
Environment. 2013, University of Salford, UK: Salford. p. 352.
26. UKCIP, Small and Medium Enterprises - vulnerability and resilience to extreme weather ed. M.
Goldthorpe. 2009, Oxford: UKCIP.
27. Labaka, L., J. Hernantes, and J.M. Sarriegi, A framework to improve the resilience of critical
infrastructures. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 2015. 6(4): p. 409-
423.
28. Wilson, S., Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2010, Northumberland County Council
Northumberland, UK.
29. IBM Global Services, Resilient infrastructure: Improving your business resilience. 2002, New York: IBM
Corporation.
30. Paulk, M.C., et al., Capability maturity model, version 1.1. Software, IEEE, 1993. 10(4): p. 18-27.
31. SEI, CMMI for development, version 1.3: improving processes for developing better products and services.
2010.
32. Yeo, K. and Y. Ren, Risk management capability maturity model for complex product systems (CoPS)
projects. Systems Engineering, 2009. 12(4): p. 275-294.
33. Virtual Corporation, Business Continuity Maturity Model of Virtual Corporation. 2005.
34. Backlund, F., D. Chronéer, and E. Sundqvist, Project Management Maturity Models – A Critical Review.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014. 119: p. 837-846.
35. Kaur, J., Comparative study of capability maturity model. International Journal of Advanced Research in
Computer Science & Technology, 2014. 2(1): p. 47-49.
36. Keraminiyage, K.P., R.D.G. Amaratunga, and R.P. Haigh. Identifying higher capability maturity KPAs of
construction organisations; model refinement through expert interviews. in 7th International Postgraduate
Conference in the Built and Human Environment, 28th - 29th March 2007. University of Salford, Quays,
UK.
37. Niazi, M., D. Wilson, and D. Zowghi, A maturity model for the implementation of software process
improvement: an empirical study. Journal of Systems and Software, 2005. 74(2): p. 155-172.
38. PRINCE 2, Maturity model (P2MM). 2012.
39. Sun, M., C. Vidalakis, and T. Oza. A change management maturity model for construction projects. in 25th
Annual ARCOM Conference. 2009. Nottingham, UK, 7-9 September.
40. AXELOS, Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model Instruction and Guide to
P3M3. 2013, AXELOS.
41. Batica, J., P. Gourbesville, and F. Tessier. Methodology for maturity of flood risk management frameworks
assesment – application to asian and european cities. in International Conference on Flood Resilience:
Experiences in Asia and Europe. 2013. Exeter, UK, 5-7 September: ICFR.
42. OGC, PRINCE 2 Maturity Model. 2010, London: OGC.
43. Kwak, Y.H. and C.W. Ibbs, Project management process maturity (PM) 2 model. Journal of management
in engineering, 2002. 18(3): p. 150-155.
44. APSC Organisational capability. 2012.
45. OGC, Portfolio, programme and project management maturity model (P3M3) version 2.1 2010.