IssuesSectionsAuthorsKeywords

Article

Issue:2026 №1 (93)
Section:Management
UDK:005.52:005.334
DOI:https://doi.org/10.33271/ebdut/93.173
Article language:Ukrainian
Pages:173-184
Title:Modeling strategic survival trajectories of enterprises in a non-linear environment
Authors:Kozenkova V. D., Dnipro State Agrarian and Economic University,
Kozenkov D. Ye., Ukrainian State University of Science and Technology
Annotation:Methods. The study employs a comprehensive methodological approach, integrating analysis and synthesis to re-evaluate the evolution of management paradigms from VUCA to BANI. The theoretical framework is built upon systems analysis, dynamic capabilities theory, and the concept of antifragility. The quantitative toolkit was developed using an entropic approach and methods of economic-mathematical modeling (Poisson distribution, Euler functions, and logarithmic saturation). Parameter weights were determined using Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), while model verification was conducted through simulation modeling and the construction of strategic resilience topological maps. Results. The study presents the Integrated Adaptability Level Index (IALI) model, based on the non-linear synergy of four vectors: digital maturity, organizational mobility, reactivity, and depth of transformation. It is proven that the overall systemic resilience is determined by the «strength of the weakest link». The role of the external damper, which depends on the destruction intensity and the level of institutional protection, is mathematically substantiated. A topological map has been constructed to identify three strategic states: the Fragility Zone (resource depletion), the Transition Zone, and the Antifragility Zone (expansion through shock absorption). It was established that the most effective development vector is «diagonal progression» – the simultaneous reduction of vulnerability and the enhancement of autonomy. Novelty. The scientific novelty lies in the paradigm shift from «risk management» to the concept of «survival management». A mathematical IALI model that characterizes the effect of resilience saturation via a logarithmic function is presented. For the first time, the STRUM model (Swiftness, Transparency, Resilience, Unity, Mobility) is proposed as an operational antidote to the challenges of the BANI world. The theory of adaptive management has been further developed by integrating existential factors of the BANI environment (anxiety, incomprehensibility) into quantitative business metrics and phase maps of stability. Practical value. The developed toolkit enables stress-testing of business models under conditions of high uncertainty. The IALI model, in synergy with STRUM algorithms, provides specific mechanisms for assessing «cloud autonomy» and «energy sovereignty». The practical application of topological maps allows for the justification of relocation, product portfolio changes, or investments in personnel multi-skilling based on objective data rather than managerial intuition. 
Keywords:Adaptive management, BANI world, STRUM model, Antifragility, Integrated Adaptability Level Index (IALI), Strategic resilience, Digital maturity, Survival managementt
File of the article:EV20261_173-184.pdf
Literature:
  • 1. Gerras, S. (Ed.). (2010). Strategic leadership primer (3rd ed.). U.S. Army War College.
  • 2. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica, Issue 47, 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
  • 3. Taleb, N.N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House.
  • 4. Taleb, N.N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. Random House. Retrieved from http://kgt.bme.hu
  • 5. Cascio, J. (2020, April 29). Facing the age of chaos. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@cascio/facing-the-age-of-chaos-b00687b1f51d
  • 6. Olkowicz, J.U., Jarosik-Michalak, A., & Kozłowski, A. (2024). The role of a leader in shaping employee behaviour in the VUCA/BANI world. Journal of Modern Science, 56(2), 503-534. https://doi.org/10.13166/jms/188913
  • 7. Chao, W. S. (2015). A compendium of systems thinking 2.0: The structure-behavior coalescence approach. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
  • 8. Vuorikari, R., Punie, Y., Carretero Gomez, S., & Van Den Brande, G. (2016). DigComp 2.0: The digital competence framework for citizens: Update phase 1: The conceptual reference model. Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC101254
  • 9. Linley, P.A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Toward a theoretical foundation for positive psychology in practice. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 713-731). John Wiley & Sons.
  • 10. Ashby, W.R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. Chapman & Hall.
  • 11. Hannan, M.T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Harvard University Press.
  • 12. Teece, D.J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
  • 13. Weick, K.E., & Sutcliffe, K.M. (2007). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in the age of uncertainty (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  • 14. Varis, I., Kravchuk, O., & Eldris, Y. (2024). Leadership in conditions of instability: An innovative model for enhancing organizational resilience. Social and Labour Relations: Theory and Practice, 14(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.21511/slrtp.14(2).2024