I have been finding it difficult to keep the production up the past few weeks. A new role and new project that occupies most of my time has certainly changed the dynamics!
My new primary project involves an increased focus on IT operations and Systems Availability – so perhaps I will have to find ways to write about that a little more. Otherwise I am still keen to explore this concept of resilience.
My presentation for the conference in Toronto is also about change. Change as it has been seen in this industry – and often that has not always been a change for the good.
In the time I have been involved in this area of work (in excess of 20 years) we have had DR Planning (only reactive and technology focussed – not much different today), extension to include business recovery – but still reactive, Business Continuity Planning and Management (to most people it was just a change of name – sad to say but little real change) – and this concept of resilience has become so prevalent that the World Conference on Disaster Management has introduced a stream on resilience.
No doubt many people will dispute my assertion that not much changed with the introduction of BCM. I rely on the “Forrest Gump” defence.
Forrest repeated something his mother told him – “Stupid is as stupid does”. So I say, “BCM is as BCM does”, if the bulk of what you see is low level plans with no relevance to management and minimal focus on the Proactive aspect, then a standards-based definition is irrelevant. BCM is just BCP for many organisations.
I keep coming back to this idea that building and maintaining resilience is about capability. BC seems to have lost the focus on capability and become more focussed on compliance and certification.
What changes have you seen in the way BC is conducted at your organisation?
Do you see BC as having more focus on a management process (something that engages managers and executives) or a planning process (something that is focussed on the production of plan documents)?
Leave a Reply