This website or its third-party tools use cookies which are necessary to its functioning and required to improve your experience. By clicking the consent button, you agree to allow the site to use, collect and/or store cookies.
I accept

Resilience Ninja

Coaching and ideas to help build agile and resilient practices.

You are here: Home / Resilience Thinking / … the Foundations, Part 2

Jan 14 2010

… the Foundations, Part 2

In the previous post in this series I set out some basic thoughts. Perhaps the state of my current thinking on the subject can be summed up as follows;

  • Heritage BC has become a compliance activity.
    • BCP for compliance with audit and
    • BCM for compliance with management systems standards.
  • Resilience has to be about building capability

To improve the resilience of an organisation we need to address a number of Proactive aspects as well as a number of Reactive aspects. Again this is no different to the traditional approach to BC.

One key differentiator is the need to remove silos – especially the silo around the organisation itself. To improve resilience we need to rigorously investigate the way our supply chain partners are approaching this subject. The traditional model of passively asking to see their BC Plans is inadequate.

We need to “harden” our organisations. Make them more robust, such that they can absorb certain impacts without breaking. This is a strategic aspect that will have to be driven “top down” as it requires targeted investment. In addition, as we cannot hope to be able to absorb all impacts, we need an appropriate level of robustness – something that needs to be determined by top executives.

Despite our efforts at hardening things will break. When they do, we need to be able to cope – even if we have never thought about the risk nor planned for it. Resilience, therefore, goes well beyond where Risk Management stops – we need to be able to deal with the risks that have never been identified.

To be able to respond to these scenarios (and the ones we did anticipate) will require an investment in redundant capacity and the development of the skills that create agility and adaptability. It is not enough to have redundant processing options, we need to be able to exploit this capacity, do it quickly and sustain that model of operations for as long as required.

All sounds like BC you may think. Maybe.

Proactive design and investment in robustness and redundancy, driven top down. Development of skills to sense and respond to the situation – in a day-to-day operational environment that empowers agile responses. Building all these capabilities in the context of a wider community (a capability that requires an end-to-end view and needs to be driven bottom up).

Readers and comments have been thin on the ground the past few weeks, perhaps it is the season.

Remember those standard university paper questions?

Resilience may just be about doing BCM properly. Discuss.

Photo Credit

Written by Coach K · Categorized: Resilience Thinking · Tagged: Adaptability, Agility, Resilience, Robustness

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tags

Adaptability Agility Amy Lee AS/NZS 5050 BCAW BCI BCM BC Practice Charley Newnham Community Community Conferences Craft Craft Crisis Management Culture Cynefin Deepwater Horizon Disruption DRJ Frameworks Goals High Reliability ISACA Jan Husdal Learning Organisation LinkedIn Operational Risk Pandemic People Plans Practice Resilience Resilient Organisations Riskczar Risk Management Skills Standards Stone-Roads Supply Chain Risk Theory Tools/Technology Vulnerablity WCDM 2010 Weather

Search Form

Social Icons

  • Dribbble
  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • Instagram
  • Twitter

Post Categories

April 2025
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  
« Jun    

© 2025 Resilience Ninja · Rainmaker Platform