# Improving the Resilience of High-Speed Rail Systems from a Configuration Perspective
## 3 Research Method
### Variables Measurement  
All of the variables in this study were measured using a 3-item scale, as represented in Table 3. Specifically, TS was measured based on technology standards, advanced technology, and R&D capabilities [56; 68]. QC was reflected in adequate preliminary surveys, quality management system, and trial run [36; 40]. EM was measured based on access management, acceptance management, and integrated deployment [41]. Following [PERSON] et al. (2016), three items were proposed to measure OS [43]. Based on [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2013), OE was measured based on organizational climate, staff redundancy, and the decision system [69]. SO was measured by three items: real-time inspection, health files, and emergency management [25; 47]. DW was measured as a warning system to call attention in a timely manner to unstable or unusual conditions [58]. PA was measured as the ability to keep normal function facing disturbance [49]. FR was measured by restoration speed, restoration proposal, and execution [23]. Based on [PERSON] et al. (2010), three items were proposed to measure AT: data mining, lessons learned, and system improvement [54].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Category** & **Characteristic** & **Frequency** & **\%** & **Total** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Designation} & \multirow{3}{*}{Scholar} & Professor & 17 & 6.30\% & \\  & & Associate professor & 39 & 14.44\% & \\  & & Assistant professor/Lecturer & 24 & 8.89\% & \\  & & Other designation in academia & 22 & 8.15\% & \\ \cline{2-5}  & \multirow{3}{*}{Practitioner} & Senior manager & 12 & 4.44\% & \\  & & Department manager & 42 & 15.56\% & \\  & & Project manager & 48 & 17.78\% & \\  & & Other designation in industry & 66 & 24.44\% & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Years of experience} & \multirow{3}{*}{Years of experience} & \(<\)5 & 63 & 23.33\% & \\  & & 5–10 & 52 & 19.26\% & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & 11–15 & 57 & 21.11\% & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & 16–20 & 57 & 21.11\% & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & \(>\)20 & 41 & 15.19\% & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Profiles of respondents.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Items/Indicators** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{TS} & Independent variables \\ \cline{2-3}  & & There is a complete set of technical standards \\ \cline{1-1}  & & We will adopt advanced technology \\ \cline{1-1}  & & We will keep absorbing external technology and innovating new technology to enhance our \\ \cline{1-1}  & & \
\begin{tabular}{c} We will conduct adequate preliminary surveys in the aspects of geology, hydrology, meteorology, etc. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \cline{1-1}  & QC & We will establish high quality management system. \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Before operation, we will conduct trial run. \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{EM} & \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} We will check product certification, quality inspection and other access certificate for HSR equipment. \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{1-1}  & EM & We will implement an acceptance system for HSR system. \\ \cline{1-1}  & & We will integrate deployment of fixed facilities and mobile equipment. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Variables measurement.  
Regarding HSR system resilience, it was measured by three questions, i.e., (1) \"High resilience can improve HSR system's safety, reliability and punctuality\"; (2) \"High resilience can reduce the effect of disturbance\"; and (3) \"High resilience can contribute HSR system to recovery normal function after damaged\".