The title reminds me of an old joke – you can have capability, maturity or mapping – pick any two!
Only the one webinar that was of interest to me on Day 2 of BCAW 2012.
Karen Humphris of ContinuitySA presenting on their CM2 – Capability & Maturity Model.
The model is based on the old adage that you cannot manage what you do not measure. To this end they have created 12 BCM success factors, which have specific measures and weighted averages that all mix together to produce a standard 5 level maturity rating.
If you want to know the 12 factors, you will have to watch the webinar, I am not going to summarise for you.
One of the most interesting parts of this model is that the top level of maturity is labelled as “recovery is certifiable” – which could be a comment of either the assessor or the target of assessment! In general the maturity levels are defined in terms of all, most, or a limited number of mission critical processes able to be recovered within RTO.
One of the significant value adds of this model is the neat graphics that are generated, which would be useful additions to Board papers and compliance reports.
I have seen numerous efforts to distill BCM and the overall state of preparedness to a series of scores, ratings or maturity levels – with various levels of success. It would be interesting to see this model being applied in the real world.
I often wonder why we choose to re-invent these things. Next week I am taking the training to become an assessor on Virtual Corp’s Business Continuity Maturity Model. I have been watching this tool since it was first launched almost 10 years ago – I doubt it is perfect, but it does provide a widely used model to generate comparative assessments.
I would be interested in comments about what type of measurement and assessment techniques you use for your BCM Program.
The other area of interest today was the publication of the latest paper on “Organisational Resilience” by the BCI Partnership group I am part of. You can read about the “big debate” on the BC Eye – and this year there is a survey to gauge people’s response to the subject.
This year’s paper acknowledges (perhaps grudgingly) that culture plays a role in resilience (a clearer statement in last year’s paper), but this year we are more focussed on the various disciplines that may contribute to resilience and how it might be possible to map these contributions.
This paper was meant to promote discussion, I would be interested in hearing any comments from readers of this blog. If I can find an official online discussion of the paper I will bring it to your attention – I know we had one last year.