Develop a brief explanation that distinguishes the differences between adaptability and resilience

as these concepts apply within engineered cognitive systems. Provide an example of each and
describe how they are mutually exclusive.

Adaptability and Resilience in Cognitive Systems

In this week’s discussion post, we will briefly discuss the differences between
adaptability, and resilience. From this weeks’ readings, we can understand that the concept of
resilience can be used in four different ways: (1) rebound, (2) robustness, (3) graceful
extensibility, and (4) sustained adaptability (Wood, 2015). This shows that adaptability is just
one way of explaining the design of resilient systems. To elaborate further on these two ideas, we
will analyze two examples of resilient and adaptive systems.
Adaptive Example
Subramanian & Chung (2001) define a system’s adaptative capability as its tolerance to
change in the environment without external intervention. One example of this can be seen in
dual-mode cell phones. The phone operates by itself to determine which of the two wireless
standards is available. This process is followed at every location the phone is taken to and
operates accordingly. Hence, this example shows how a common device like the cell phone uses
the concept of adaptability. Another example of an adaptive systems can be seen in Wall Street
Journal’s (2018) video on how the robotic assembly line has evolved the manufacturing industry.
They explain that these systems are not composed of fixed algorithms and instead, the
programming keeps evolving based on its dynamic environment (Nourmohammadi et al., 2022).
This allows the robots to exhibit human like traits (e.g., flexibility) and increases the chances of
successfully completing the task.
Resilient Example
On the other hand, Patterson et al. (2007) demonstrate that resilience can be defined as
how the system recovers and still functions at the desired level after suffering from partial
damage. Furthermore, Zhang et al. (2017) stated that this concept can be closely related to self-
healing, and dependability. One example of a resilient system is a soft robot. They can deform
their body by achieve damage recovery when the system ha modular bodies. Zhang et al. (2017)
describes that there are two big criteria that ensure the system is not just adaptable but considered
resilient: (1) the system must have function redundancy, and (2) system must follow modular
architecture. Subsequently, this allows the systems to be self-configurable, making them have
relatively high resilience.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this discussion post shows examples of systems that will be considered
resilient and those considered adaptive. These examples depict that a system does not have to be
resilient to be adaptable. However, if a system is resilient, it is also adaptable (Wood, 2015).
Researchers can explore this topic further by determining how several adaptive systems can be
improvised to become resilient as well.

References
Subramanian, N., & Chung, L. (2001). Metrics for software adaptability. Proc. Software Quality
Management (SQM 2001), 158. https://personal.utdallas.edu/~chung/ftp/sqm.pdf
Nourmohammadi, A., Fathi, M., & Ng, A. H. (2022). Balancing and scheduling assembly lines with
human-robot collaboration tasks. Computers & Operations Research, 140, 105674.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2021.105674
Patterson, E. S., Woods, D. D., Cook, R. I., & Render, M. L. (2007). Collaborative cross-checking
to enhance resilience. Cognition, Technology & Work, 9(3), 155-162.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-006-0054-8
Wall Street Journal (2018). The robot revolution: The new age of manufacturing | Moving upstream
[Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX6M4QunVmA
Woods, D. D. (2015). Four concepts for resilience and the implications for the future of resilience
engineering. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 141, 5-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.018
Zhang, T., Zhang, W., & Gupta, M. M. (2017). Resilient robots: Concept, review, and future
directions. Robotics, 6(4), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics6040022