Introduction

The idea of Business Continuity Management (BCM) has grown up during the recent years and it is considered to be the key for the survival of any organization that facing a crisis and challenges in the business (Sawalha, 2013). Many organizations at the present time rethink on crises management and being ready for facing them using proper management techniques (Zhang & McMurray, 2013). Hence, BCM observed from many edges by various analysts for the purpose of developing business performance (Maier et al., 2014). The BCM technique focuses on the personnel of the organization as well as the processes that are vital to business survival (Shaw & Harrald, 2006), assuring the continuity of critical functions inside organizations. Hence, with the tough competition in the market, every organization should adopt a BCM that organizations need (Alharthi & Khalifa, 2019). However, securing the flow of resources as inputs to production is the most crucial aspect of BCM (Mohamed, 2019). Indeed, any type of business disruption has the potential to be enormously harmful to a company, not just in terms of monetary losses but also in terms of intangible effects on corporate reputation and confidence (Tammineedi, 2010). As a result, establishing a working strategy to ensure that important business processes are restarted as effectively and soon as feasible in the case of an unplanned disruption is a critical business necessity (Wong, 2009).

The early studies that concentrated on the critical role of BCM argued that BCM could turn into an expert of the aggressive choice for organizations but these studies did not deliberate ultimately on how BCM can lead to organizational performance specifically (Herbane et al., 2004). In extension, Sawalha (2013) further pointed out that the act of BCM in increasing organizational performance suffers infrequently been consulted or indeed focused on in the continuing studies. Hence, recognizing the possible advances of BCM on the organizational performance is necessary to provide accurate value to the BCM powers and attract consideration and afterward, realizing adequate assistance from the senior management. Taking into account the important perspective of BCM, this study attempts to fill the theoretical and practical gaps in public organizations in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The empirical evidences that will come out from the quantitative analysis will show BCM and organizational performance are correlated, the main theoretical gaps in the performing literature complied with in this research lies in the inadequate studies which have examined this relationship in public sector in UAE. The general objective of this study is to evaluate the relationship between BCM (BCM) and organizational performance of public organization in UAE.

Problem Statement

There are challenges faced by the BCM professionals in developing and maintaining the BCM infrastructure and activities (Bakar et al., 2015). Peterson (2009) argued that one of the reasons many organizations fail to implement effective BCM is due to lack of financial support as great prudence in expenditures is exercised by many senior management and the board of directors.

The problem statement of this study is how BCM components influence organizational performance in public sector organizations. In addition, as stated by Peterson (2009) that many organizations are not aware of BCM and failed to implement effective BCM, this is due to the lack of resources that the organization have not managed as well as required, theses resource could be manpower, finance, etc. This could be in line for that there is no straight financial advantage or profit from the investment is seen from the implementation of BCM in the organization. In order to successfully implement BCM in the organization in secure funding, BCM professionals in any organization should pay attention with the business authority to predict and evaluate the prospective loss due to service idle time, this could be done by identify the likelihood of risks, define the best rescue objectives and indicate the most cost effective clarification and knowledge about BCM (Belaouras, 2009). Another demand and challenges are using BCM in organizations which cut across several business groups or completing it on a collective business-wide support (Belaouras, 2009). These conditions indicate the usefulness of old management responsibility and regulation to command the preference of BCM actions across all organization members (Zahari et al., 2015). In order to discuss these issues, recognizing the possible advances of BCM on the organizational performance is necessary to provide accurate value to the BCM powers and attract consideration and afterward, realizing adequate assistance from the senior management.

Research Methodology

The analysis in this study is based on quantitative methods. Survey questionnaire and is the main research methods for primary data collection. The target research population in this study is represented all the employees in Abu Dhabi public organization in UAE. Moreover, a question was built to approve the existence of a relationship between BCM, organizational performance.

Business Continuity Management

Business Continuity Management (BCM) is a plan for describing an organization’s risk of publicity to internal and external risks. The objective of BCM is to give the organization the strength to completely react to risks such as ‘real disasters’ or data breaches and support the business activities of the organization. Business Continuity (BC) refers to a continuous and uninterrupted state of business. The focus is on the resilience of people, real estate, processes, platforms and suppliers as well as the availability and integrity of information. Interruption refers to an interruption that has a temporal dimension and therefore at the enterprise level but that does not contain operational anomalies managed by standard operating procedures (Peter, 2018). While BCM includes disaster improvement, business return, crisis management, incident management, difficulty management, and emergency planning (Lindström, 2012). If an organization wants to stay competitive, it must have defensive measures in place in the event of a business disruption caused by a crisis occurrence; this can be accomplished by improving their performance regularly (Al-Ali, 2019). According to Wong (2009) organization who adopt BCM have a competitive advantage in terms of adaptation to crisis. This allows an organization to recover from the crisis and resume vital operations with minimal disruption. However, BCM has an impact on crisis management based on the organization's recovery and vital functions. This link reveals a crucial millstone the business's ability to stay competitive in the face of critical situations (Alharthi & Khalifa, 2019).

The first BCM model was prepared in 2006 in the UK after having experienced grand-scale crises and emergencies. Researchers, therefore, identified themselves as constrained to meet structures and plans to improve BCM standards. Should the systems give up with such measures, they will remain to deliver critical/ fundamental serves and utilities, recover from the confusion, and response to regular activities. Naturally, business disruptions of any sort could have extremely damaging repercussions to an organization, not only in terms of tangible financial losses, but also intangible effects on the corporate reputation and customers’ confidence. It is therefore, a critical business imperative that a working plan should be established to ensure that in the event of an unforeseen disruption, critical business functions will be resumed as effectively and quickly as possible. Similarly, organizations desiring to stay competitive and successful must be well protected, through successful adoption to BCM so that it could remain profitably in the event of any fatal business disruption (Zahari et al., 2015).

When it comes to business interruptions, it is not about whether, but when, how and how bad it is. Although the risks of interruption are rare, they can have serious consequences for critical services that normal management cannot solve. The risks associated with the disruption include physical and non-physical events such as natural disasters, pandemics, major public service losses, financial crises, accidents and incidents that threaten our reputation (Peter, 2018). It is evident that BCM is a framework for identifying an organization's risk of exposure to internal and external threats. The goal of BCM is to provide the organization with the ability to effectively respond to threats such as natural disasters or data breaches and protect the business interests of the organization as shown in Figure-1.

The resources of any organization might help in developing and contributing to its business continuity, as we can see that the UAE public organization have ability to maintained its resources in order to continue the business continuity. In this perception of BCM is one discipline that, combined with other related disciplines, makes up BR (Copenhaver & Lindstedt, 2010). Table-1 indicates some of the applications of BCM in different aspects.

Table 1 Selected Interpretations of Bcm From the Various Point Of Views
Author	Status	Description
Randeree et al. (2012)	BCM as a process	BCM has inputs and outputs; BCM is ongoing process; BCM use feedback; BCM as a process should be defined, managed, measured and controlled
Ning & Wong (2009)	BCM as a function andProfession	BCM as a function should be attributed to respective managers and staff; BCM requires specialized competences; BCM may be manager’s specialty
Copenhaver & Lindstedt (2010)	BCM as a discipline	BCM has common goals and tasks; BCM may be part of planning process in organization; BCM has common scope of matter; BCM may be treated as a relatively separate part of a management system
Foster & Dye (2005)	BCM as a program	BCM may be realized using convention of program; BCM should have: requirements for program, policy and goals, requisite resources;BCM should use formal procedures
Jedynak (2011)	BCM as a system	BCM may be treated as a subsystem in the globalmanagement system on an organization;BCM - using systemic approach - should be holistic; BCM may use standards of management systems (e.g. ISO22301)

Business Continuity Management in UAE

The objective of BCM is to assure the operational continuity of an organization and this research refers to The UAE public organization. Besides continuity of businesses, BCM plays an important role in preserving the competitive advantage of businesses and the economy as a whole (Herbane, et al., 2004). In general, many industries have emerged BCM as a structured procedure in responding to the consequences of disasters or crises (Herbane, et al., 2004). Previous studies related to BCM suggested for activities and actions that needed to be accomplished to accurately prepare any organizations when facing disaster. The activities involve in BCM consists of a number of different phases, which depend on the context of BCM required by an organization and in this study, concerns the business continuity of UAE public organization. These activities consist of risk assessment and business impact analysis which form the two important activities to commence the BCM planning process.

In UAE, BCM Toolkit have been developed to help organizations build their business continuity capability during and after an emergency situation, crisis or disaster. All these initiatives are aimed at ensuring ongoing performance of essential functions and services in both the public and private sectors, for the purpose of enhancing the UAE’s national stability. The objectives of BCM of the UAE government or local governments of each emirate and the entities under their jurisdiction in both public and private sectors are as follows:

• Maintain main/vital works and services in both the public and commercial sectors

• Create a solid business continuity plan for supplying critical services when an emergency arises in a planned and controlled manner, services are provided.

• Develop a proactive business continuity and risk management plan for all federal and local entities in the emirate's day-to-day activities and services, and the public and commercial enterprises that fall under their control.

The review of literature reveals few studies that address the role of BCM in UAE public and private sector. Randeree et al., (2012) addressed the need for a BCM maturity model in the banking sector in UAE, the found that the application of a standard maturity model for BCM as a situational analysis tool for the banking sector is functional and can be the basis of a tool to address the gap in organizations in general to assess the maturity level of their BCM processes. In the same context, Alharthi & Khalifa (2019) tested a new approach to reengineer the crisis performance of governmental entities in UAE by testing the relationships among crisis leadership BCM. They found that the mediation effect of BCM place to ensure the stability of the organization in order to follow the consistency for running in the market. Greatly, the main theoretical gaps in the performing literature complied with in this research lies in the inadequate studies which have examined and recognized the relationships between BCM factors and organizational performance. Hence, this study will examine the impact of BCM components on the performance of public organizations in UAE.

The Factors of BCM

Critical success factor is defined as few performance measures of which, if they are accomplished satisfactorily, they will assure successful competitive performance for the organization asserted that they are the things that must go right and for that reason, special attention must be given to these factors (Zahari et al., 2015). Based on current literature, there are various critical success factors of BCM and for the purpose of this study, the critical success factors are also referred as components. This study will focus on examining the selected BCM critical success factors adapted from previous studies (Chow & Ha, 2009; Chow, 2000; Herbane et al., 2010; Hoong, 2011; Jarvelainen, 2013; Karim, 2011). The selected BCM factors will be used to measure BCM in public organizations, which include 1) management support, 2) external requirements, 3) organization preparedness, and 4) embeddedness of continuity practices. These four factors are selected as factors from the past studies (Zahari et al., 2015). While Gerald (2004) focused on six stages of BCM cycle incorporating secure environment which is derived from a well-planned architecture and business process design.

In the same context, Ream (2002a, 2002b) recommended measuring BCM by assessing the level of maturity for maximum control in place. Additionally, there are several guidelines for measuring BCM which were designed to comprehensively setup conclusive framework in an organization (Shamsul & Masarat, 2008). As mentioned earlier, BCM has various success factors or components which are used to measure BCM, and for the objectives of this study, these factors are also referred to as components. Table-2 below provides an overview of previous studies and findings of these studies on BCM components.

Table 2The Literature Findings on Bcm Factors
Author/s	BCM components
Jarvelainen (2013)	Management support, organizational alertness and preparedness, embeddedness of continuity practices and external requirements.
Chow and Ha (2009)(Al-Lamy et al., 2018)	Documentations, steering committee, testing, policy and goals, training, maintenance and staff involvement, minimum IT processing requirements, senior management commitment, prioritization of IS critical functions and backup system.
Hoong (2011)(Al-Shami et al., 2021)	Planning (project management, maintenance), technology (IT availability, technology competency, infrastructure advantage), organization (business continuity benefits, top management commitment, organization readiness), environment (regulatory requirement, SLA, business environment) and individual (staff competency, roles and responsibility, stakeholder relationship)
Chow (2000)Herbane et al., (2010)	Management support, adequate financial support, appropriate backup site, off-site storage of backup media and training Speed of recovery (organization alertness and preparedness), configuration resilience, obligation (regulation and legislation) and embeddedness of BCM process.
Karim (2011)	Strategic management, risk analysis, resources, training and awareness, documentation, information and life cycle management.

Based on list of findings in Table-2, the author will focus on some critical success factors (components) for BCM, adjusted for previous studies. The selected BCM factors are used including: Management support, external requirements, organization preparedness, risk management. These four factors were selected according to their definition and scope within the context of BCM. In addition, these components are significant elements for the successful implementation of the BCM in the organization.

Management Support

Several researchers have suggested that it is necessary to launch, sponsor and support a senior management business continuity program in the pre-implementation phase (Zahari et al., 2015; Yen et al., 2000). Senior management commitment is essential to provide organizational functions and services that operate under good conditions (Laurent, 2007; Chow, 2000). Therefore, only the active involvement of senior management can guarantee the continued provision of financial support and other critical resources to develop and support the BCM implementation. Payne (1999) argues that the lack of support by top management ultimately leads to poor execution, inadequate involvement of the company as a whole, and ultimately failure planning. Similarly, lack of understanding by senior management also prevents the effective implementation of the BCM program (Pitt & Goyal, 2004). In this regard, Rohde & Haskett (1990) also argue that BCM initiatives are taken seriously by employees if it is clear that the management team is fully committed and supportive of BCM. Without direct supervision and monitoring by managers, most initiatives of BCM will not be effective and may not innovate and mobilize opportunities for organizational change (Attaran, 2003; Zahari et al., 2015).

External Requirements

BCM is no longer an additional task for large organizations operated in public and private sectors. Maintaining corporate value has become a growing problem for external stakeholders, such as legislators and regulatory authorities, who must force organizations in their area of responsibility to comply with the rules of business continuity. Regulatory requirements by government agencies and at some point by consumers motivate management to further improve the sustainability of information technologies and their systems (Herbane et al., 2010; Zahari et al., 2015). Herbane, et al., (2004) have also argued that external factors could make BCM more important for a corporate governance program, but have also challenged organizations to assess whether their actions should be limited to the minimum requirements set by regulators or use a more strategic approach to go beyond the minimum requirements and improve their BCM capabilities (Elliott et al., 2010).

Organization Preparedness

The company's sustainability largely depends on its ability to quickly avoid and resolve an unwanted event. Herbane, et al., (2004) found that an organization that was able to quickly identify potential risks and transfer them to a crisis management team was better under the control of external risks (Zahari et al., 2015). Organizational availability means knowing different ways to recover and avoid risks, such as: action plans for continuity, creation of crisis management teams and duplication of jobs for key employees (Hagerfors et al. 2010; Ruighaver et al., 2012). Even after serious incidents have occurred, business continuity plans must be updated, tested and improved regularly (Gibb & Buchanan, 2006). Moreover, Herbane, et al., (2004) suggested that the rapid recovery from risks shows the strong ability in the form of organizational preparation to deal with potential risks, which includes alternative target preparation, well-executed recovery plans, and reduction of critical resources. Organizational readiness is also enhanced if one or more individuals can effectively restore critical business functions or systems (Conlon & Smith, 2010).

Risk Management

In any industries, business continuity management is viewed as an important component of a larger framework or as a component of other management processes and framework process (Gallagher, 2003). Risk management and business impact analysis part of Business Continuity Management and are examples of activities governed under the corporate governance and risk management policy. Risk management main aim is to identify internal as well as external threats, to priotize identified threats before identifying and developing action plans to mitigate risk. Business impact analysis which is within the business continuity management refers to the critically identified processes associated to the risks to businesses and are detailed in an organization’s risk management program. Previous literature has shown that risk management (Ruzic-Dimitrijevic & Dakic, 2014) and are important factors in planning business continuity (Wu et al., 2016). Every organization has different types of risks and organizations should develop a culture of risk management. All types of risks must be identified, evaluated and controlled (Nor Azilah et al., 2018).

Organizational Performance

Organizational performance is a measurement of achievement of targets and objectives. Alternative, organizational performance comprises actual results or amounts compared with planned outcomes (Richard, 2009). Organizational performance also defined as the actual output (outcome) of an organization as measured against its intended (expected) outputs (Ndabahaliye, 2013). The measurement of organizational performance is concentrates on two fundamental outcomes, first, “financial performance”; second, “non-financial performance”. Financial performance includes, revenue, profitability, cost saving, return on investment, and other financial measures, while non-financial performance include: effectiveness, efficiency, quality, innovation and productivity (Liaqat, 2019). Organizational performance measures in term of both quantitative as well as qualitative term, and it is achieved by the efforts of individual employee and departments (Zehir et al., 2016). Organizational performance is a vital indicator of any organization success or failure. For instance, organizations that have high performance successful in the market and on the other hand those organizations that perform not well consider failure in the market (Shafique-ur et al., 2019). Nowadays, organizational performance playing a significant role for organizations especially in that environment where organizations face issues regarding higher competition (Cania, 2014). Moreover, the success of an organization based on their performance that how well an organization achieves its objectives (Randeree & Al Youha, 2009). Meanwhile, organizational performance is a factor that measures how well an organization attains its desired goals (Shafique-ur et al., 2019). Moreover, organizational performance playing a vital role in the existence of any kind of organizations such as profit-making organizations and non-profit making organizations (Abu-Jarad et al., 2010). It is evident that performance is a necessary factor in organizational analysis and there is no theory on organizations that is void of this concept. In this rapidly evolving and dynamic environment, one of the effective factors for the success of organizations, enhanced organizational performance and surviving the competition, includes concentration on innovation and strategic planning. Many studies have underscored that innovation often leads to competitive advantage and used to measure the performance of organizations (Amarakoon et al., 2018; Aziz & Samad, 2016; Alosani & Yusoff, 2019).

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

The relationship between BCM and organizational performance has been investigated in the literature and reveals significant association between them. Sawalha (2013) indicates that the adoption of BCM on organizational performance is considerable since BCM is one of the principal initiative elements for increasing a company’s competence to resist its flexibility, as well as continuity under severe domestic and external pressures. During this fast-developing threats that hit the market in recent years, organizations that do not have a business continuity plan have suffered business and financial losses and struggle to get back into business again, which showed the importance of business continuity to sustain organizational performance (Irkey & Tufekci, 2021). Organizations utilize BCM to support sustained performance of systems on which their core activities are based (Randeree et al., 2012). The indication behind this study was based on the certainty that BCM can contribute significantly to the optimization of organizational performance. The understanding the potential benefits of BCM on the organizational performance is important to give a proper merit to the BCM efforts and draw attention and subsequently, obtaining full support from the senior management (Bakar et al., 2015). Eric (2006) claimed that organizational performance and business continuity management are linked to each other. Likewise, Mohamed, et al., (2019) found a significant association between BCM and organizational performance. In particular, BCM provides the operational and strategic framework to both review and where appropriate redesign the way an organization provides its product and services whilst improving its resistance to disruption, failure or loss (Elliott et al., 2010). Based on these facts, it is undeniable that an effective BCM plays a very crucial role in ensuring an organization’s survivability and to remain competitive (Bakar et al., 2015). Thus, BCM has been evolved as an effective tool for ensuring the delivery of organization’s key products/services in the presence of various disruptions (Gibb & Buchanan, 2006).

The previous arguments show that organizations of every size and in any location can be affected by business disruptions. Thereby, the adoption of BCM will help organizations to improve the performance and avoid failure in the future. The implementation of BCM also protect organizations from unexpected crises, such as political events, economic crises, market changes, and even virus outbreaks and pandemic (Irkey & Tufekci, 2021). Applying BCM prevention through recovery systems to deal with potential threats to an organization (Punla et al., 2017) in a way to sustain organizational performance without being affected by external threats. Accordingly, all kind of challenges necessitate the development of a BCM strategy to ensure that operations can continue regardless of the disturbance, as well as improving organizational performance. In other words, sustain business through BCM is an essential business model. Activities including crisis preparedness, crisis identification, crisis response, and recovery are vulnerable without BCM. In the absence of the mentioned actions and measures, managers are more likely to react intuitively and make more mistakes in times of crisis, as opposed to pre-planned strategic responses to crisis circumstances (Sapriel, 2010). The problem is that a large number of organizations do not devote enough resources to adopt BCM, which might lead to insufficient responses to unexpected threats when crises happen. Despite these mentioned activities, as well as other associated concepts such as BCM should be implemented before the occurrence of crises, otherwise a potential damages and harm to business can incur without the possibility to recover in the future (Labas, 2018).

BCM helps organization to gain a better understanding of an organization's structure, structure, and stakeholder groups by supporting the development of an environmental scanning culture, as well as the identification and reporting of risks, which helps with other planning activities and strategy formulation (PWC, 2009). All these benefits of BCM lead to higher level of organizational performance. Moreover, BCM include, among other things, strategies for rapid business recovery, preparations for alternate business sites in the event of an emergency, and responses to the issues that employees face in times of crisis. Therefore, BCM not only improve organizational performance but also enables firms to revert to their pre-crisis business route (Light, 2008). Based on the previous findings, the following hypothesis statement has been examined in this studies:

“BCM factors (Management support, external requirements, organization preparedness, risk management) have significant effects on the organizational performance of public entities in UAE”

In conclusion, based on an analysis of the BCM in literature, the four factors of BCM namely: Management support, external requirements, organization preparedness, risk management assumed to have a direct impact on organizational performance as shown in Figure-2.

Results Findings

In this section, a multiple linear regression is used to examined the direct relationships between the BCM factors on organizational performance. The evaluation of relationships is made through a multiple regression analysis. The resulting data indicated in Table-3 indicates the strength of direct relationships between BCM factors and organizational performance.

Table 3Regression Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
	0.681	0.463	0.450	0.44646
a. Predictors: (Constant), Risk Management, External Requirements, Management support, Organization preparedness

The initial assessment to the output in the summary Table-3 explains the degree of which as regression model predicts the variability between each independent variable (BCM factors) and organizational performance. It is found the magnitude of R²=0.463. These values show the percentage of total variation in organizational performance which can be explained by all BCM factors. In other words, the change in BCM factors explains (46.30%) of the change in organizational performance. To examine the significance of relationship between BCM factors and organizational performance, unstandardized coefficients is used to report that direct relationships between them is statistically significant (p-value ≤ 0.05) as shown in Table-4. In addition to that, the strength of each relationship in regression model is examined using Standardized coefficients (Beta).

Table 4 Summary of Multiple Linear Regressions Between the Variables
Regression Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
	(Constant)	0.712	0.224		3.187	0.002
	Management support	0.175	0.050	0.228	3.538	0.001
	External Requirements	0.130	0.036	0.212	3.616	0.000
	Organization preparedness	0.117	0.049	0.164	2.402	0.017
	Risk Management	0.308	0.060	0.380	5.129	0.000
a. Dependent Variable: Organizational performance

Reading the output data in Table-4 reveals that all relationships between BCM factors and organizational performance (dependent variable) are significant (≤ 0.05). While the magnitudes of standardized coefficients are moderate. The strongest relationship is found between risk management and organizational performance (Beta=0.380). Therefore, the causal relationships exist between BCM factors (Management support, external requirements, organization preparedness, risk management) and the performance of public organizations in UAE.

Conclusion

The outcome of this study show a significant association between BCM factors and organizational performance in public sector. The findings of this paper highlight the importance of BCM in today financial and non-financial crisis. The results of this study increased the knowledge in other business management and industries. Taking into account the important perspective of BCM, this study attempts to fill the theoretical and practical gaps with respect to BCM by proposing a conceptual framework related to BCM to the performance of public organizations in UAE. The theoretical contribution of this study lies in many aspects. First, it examines the relationship between business BCM and organizational performance, where this is the first empirical attempt in this field, because this type of study was not done before on those organizations in UAE as its new research in the region. Secondly, the results of this study will increase the knowledge in other business management and organizational performance. This study will add to the research on the history of BCM and organizational performance. It could also be useful for researchers who want to make more studies in similar topics or other organizations that face BCM.

References

1. Abu-Jarad, I.Y., Yusof, N., & Nikbin, D. (2010). A review paper on organizational culture and organizational performance. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1(3).
2. Al-Ali, W. (2019). The mediating effect of job happiness on the relationship between job satisfaction and employee performance and turnover intentions: A case study on the oil and gas industry in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, 13(4), 1–15.
3. Mohamed, A., & Gamal, K. (2019). BCM and crisis leadership: An approach to re- engineer crisis performance within Abu Dhabi governmental entities, 10(1), 32-40.
4. Alosani, M.S., Yusoff, R., & Al-Dhaafri, H. (2019). The effect of innovation and strategic planning on enhancing organizational performance of Dubai Police. Innovation & Management Review, 17, 1, 2-24.
5. Al-Lamy, H.A., Bakry, M.H., Raad, W., Al-Shami, S.A., Alaraji, Z.J., Alsa-Lihi, M.W., … & Al-Tameemi, H.M. (2018). Information technology infrastructure and small medium enterprises’ in iraq. Opcion, 34(86), 1711–1724.
6. Al-Shami, S., Al-Hammadi, A.H., Hammadi, A., Al, Rashid, N., Al-Lamy, H., & Eissa, D. (2021). Online social networking websites in innovation capability and hotels’ performance in Malaysia. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 12(1), 72–84.
7. Amarakoon, U., Weerawardena, J., & Verreynne, M.L. (2018). Learning capabilities, human resource management innovation and competitive advantage. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29, 1736–1766
8. Attaran, M. (2003), Information technology and business-process redesign. Business Process Management Journal, 9(4), 440-458.
9. Aziz, N.N.A., & Samad, S. (2016). Innovation and competitive advantage: Moderating effects of firm age in foods manufacturing SMEs in Malaysia. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 256-266.
10. Zahari, B., Noor, Y., & Zulkifli, U. (2015). Business continuity management factors and organizational performance: A study on the moderating role of it capability. Journal of Management Info, 2, 5-12.
11. Belaouras, S. (2009). State of business continuity preparedness. Disaster Recovery Journal, 22(1). Retrieved from: http://www.drj.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2206&Itemid=676
12. Cania, L. (2014). The impact of strategic human resource management on organizational performance. Economia. Seria Management, 17(2), 373-383.
13. Chow, W.S. (2000). Success factors for IS disaster recovery planning in Hong Kong. Information Management and Computer Security, 8(2), 80-87.
14. Chow, W.S., & Ha, W.O. (2009). Determinants of the critical success factor of disaster recovery planning for information systems. Information Management and Computer Security, 17(3), 248-275.
15. Conlon, R., & Smith, R.V. (2010). The role of the board and the CEO in ensuring business continuity. Financial Executive, 26(9), 52-55.
16. Copenhaver, J., & Lindstedt, D. (2010). From cacophony to symphony: How to focus the discipline of business continuity. Journal of business continuity & emergency planning, 4(2), 165-173.
17. Elliott, D., Swartz, E., & Herbane, B. (2010). Business continuity management: A crisis management approach,(1st Edition). Routledge, Abingdon, UK., ISBN:9780203866337, Pages: 352.
18. Elliott, D., Swartz, E., & Herbane, B. (2010). Business continuity management: A crisis management approach(2nd Edition). New York, USA: Routledge.
19. Krell, E. (2006). Business continuity management. The society of management accountants of Canada.
20. Foster, S.P., & Dye, U. (2005). Building continuity into strategy. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 7(2).
21. Gallagher, M. (2003). Business continuity management: How to protect your company from danger. Prentice Hall.
22. Gerald, Q. (2004). Survivability and business continuity management. Data Mining and Web Intelligence, and Software Internationalisation, 32.
23. Gibb, F., & Buchanan, S. (2006). A framework for business continuity management. International Journal of Information Management, 26, 128-141.
24. Gibb, F., & Buchanan, S. (2006). A framework for business continuity management. International Journal of Information Management, 26(2), 128-141.
25. Hagerfors, A., Samuelsson, S., & Lindstrom, J. (2010). Business continuity planning methodology. Disaster Prevention and Management, 19(2), 243-255.
26. Haskett, J., & Rohde, R. (1990). Disaster recovery planning for academic computing centers. Communications of the ACM, 33(6), 652-657.
27. Herbane, B. (2010). The evolution of business continuity management: A review of practices and drivers, Business History, 52(6), 978–1002.
28. Herbane, B., Elliott, D., & Swartz, E. (2004). Business continuity management: Time for a strategic role? Long Range Planning, 37(5), 435–457.
29. Hoong, L.L. (2011). Factors influencing the success of the disaster recovery planning process: A conceptual paper. In: Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS), International Conference.
30. Irkey, T., & Tufekci, A. (2021). The importance of business continuity and knowledge management during the pandemic period. Proceedings, 74, 18
31. Jarvelainen, J. (2013). IT incidents and business impacts: Validating a framework for continuity management in information systems. International Journal of Information Management, 33, 764-774.
32. Piotr, J. (2013). Business continuity management: The perspective of management science. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 12(4), 85-9
33. Lindström, J. (2012). A model to explain a business contingency process". Disaster Prevention and Management, 21(2), 269-281.
34. Karim, A.J. (2011). Business disaster preparedness: An empirical study for measuring the factors of business continuity to face business disaster. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(18), 183-192.
35. Davor, L., Andrijana, P., & Julija, P. (2018). Evolving crisis management: Current jobs and required employee’s skills and characteristics analysis. 6th International OFEL Conference on Governance, Management and Entrepreneurship. New Business Models and Institutional Entrepreneurs: Leading Disruptive Change. April 13th - 14th, 2018, Dubrovnik, Croatia, Governance Researchand Development Centre (CIRU), Zagreb, 524-582
36. Laurent, W. (2007). Business continuity dashboards. DM Review, 17(6), 30-40.
37. Ali, L. (2019). Impact of leadership styles on organizational performance: A case study of public sector university, Bacha Khan. Journal of Multidisciplinary Approaches in Science, 4, Issue 1, University Charsadda.
38. Light, P.C. (2008). Predicting organizational crisis readiness: Perspectives and practices toward a pathway to preparedness. New York University: The Center for Catastrophe Preparedness and Response, Available at:http://www.nyu.edu/ccpr/pubs/OrgPreparedness_Report_NYU_Light_8.18.08.pdf
39. Maier, A., Brad, S., Nicoar?, D., & Maier, D. (2014). Innovation by developing human resources, ensuring the competitiveness and success of the organization. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 645-648.
40. Mohamed Naser, A.N., Gamal, S.A., & Abuelhassan, A. (2019). Investigating the impact of leadership and business continuity management on organizational crisis performance. International Business Management, 13(7), 266-278, 2019
41. Mohamed, M.S. (2019). “The mediation effect of innovation on the relationship between creativity and organizational productivity: An empirical study within public sector organizations in the UAE”. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 14(10), 3234–3242.
42. Mohammad, S., Masarat, A., Azizah, A.R., & Shamsul, S. (2008). Lessons learned in ITIL implementation failure. In IEEE International Symposium on Information Technology ITsim2008.
43. Ndabahaliye, S. (2013). An assessment on the impacts of employees ethical conducts to organization performance: A case of Dawasco. Published Journal, Open University of Tanzania.
44. Ning, W., & Wong, Z. (2009). The strategic skills of business continuity managers: Putting business continuity management into corporate long-term planning. Journal of Business Continuity U Emergency Planning, 4(1).
45. Husin, N., Abdullah, M., Ali, A.H. (2018). Business continuity planning in Malaysian universities. International journal of management and applied science, 4(6).28-32.
46. Payne, C.F. (1999). Contingency plan exercises. Disaster Prevention and Management, 8(2), 111-117.
47. Bryant, P. (2018). Business continuity management and resilience framework: http://policies.griffith.edu.au/pdf/Business Continuity Management and Resilience Framework.pdf.
48. Peterson, C.A. (2009). Business continuity management & guidelines. 2009 Information Security Curriculum Development Conference on - InfoSecCD ’09, 114.
49. Peterson, C.A. (2009). Business continuity management & guidelines. In 2009 Information Security Curriculum Development Conference, 114-120.
50. Pitt, M., & Goyal, S. (2004). Business continuity planning as a facilities management tool. Facilities, 22(3/4), 87-99.
51. Punla, T., Santos, A., & Noleal, C. (n.d.). Business continuity plan. Asia Pacific College,doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.25552.71685
52. PWC. (2009). Business continuity management services overview. Available at: http://www.pwc.com/es_MX/mx/servicios-asesorianegocios/archivo/businesscontinuity1abr09.pdf
53. Randeree, K., & Al Youha, H. (2009). Strategic management of performance: An examination of public sector organizations in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 9(4), 123-134
54. Kasim, R., Ashish, M., & Anjli, N. (2012). A business continuity management maturity model for the UAE banking sector. Business Process Management Journal, 18, 472-492.
55. Pierre, J., Yip, G.S., & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Towards Methodological Best Practice. Journal of Management, 35(3), 718-744.
56. Ruighaver, A.B., Ahmad, A., & Hadgkiss, J. (2012). Incident response teams–Challenges in supporting the organisational security function. Computers & Security, 31(5), 643-652.
57. Ruzic-Dimitrijevic, L., & Dakic, J. (2014). The risk management in higher education institutions. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 2(1), 137-152.
58. Sapriel C. (2010). Why do we keep making the same mistakes? Communication World, 27(4), 28-30.
59. Sawalha, I.H.S. (2013). Organizational performance and business continuity management: A theoretical perspective and a case study. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 6(4), 360–73. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23835428.
60. Ream, S. (2002a). How ?. The Business Continuity Management (BCM) maturity model.
61. Ream, S. (2002b). How mature is your business continuity program?
62. Rehman, S., Mohamed, R., & Ayoup, H. (2019).The mediating role of organizational capabilities between organizational performance and its determinants. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 9(30).
63. Shaw, G.L., & Harrald, J.R. (2006). The core competencies required of executive level business crisis and continuity managers--The results”. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. De Gruyter, 3, 1.
64. Tammineedi, R.L. (2010). Business continuity management: A standards-based approach, information security journal: A global perspective. Taylor & Francis, 19, 1, 36–50.
65. Wong, W.N.Z. (2009). The strategic skills of business continuity managers: Putting business continuity management into corporate long-term planning, Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning. Henry Stewart Publications, 4(1), 62–68.
66. Wu, Y.C., Kweh, Q.L., Lu, W.M., & Azizan, N.A. (2016). The impacts of risk-management committee characteristics and prestige on efficiency. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 67(6), 813-829.
67. Yen, D.C., Chou, D.C., & Hawkins, S.M. (2000). Disaster recovery planning a strategy for data security. Information Management and Computer Security, 8, 222-230.
68. Abu Bakar, Z., Yaacob, N., & Udin, Z. (2015). The effect of business continuity management factors on organizational performance: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Economics and Financial, 5(Special Issue), 128-134.
69. Zehir, C., Yildiz, H., Kole, M., & Ba§ar, D. (2016). Superior organizational performance through SHRM implications, mediating effect of management capability: An implementation on Islamic banking. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 807-816.
70. Zhang, X., & McMurray, A. (2013). Embedding business continuity and disaster recovery within risk management. World Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 61–70.