Let common sense prevail
The most stark observation arising from the latest UK Financial Services Authority business continuity publication, ‘Feedback Statement on the Resilience Benchmarking Project Discussion Paper’, is that there is no ‘rocket science’ associated with its conclusions. ‘Don’t have your business continuity centre too close, make sure it is served by different telecoms and utility provision and make sure it is not in an area of risk itself’. These were the key findings covered by Continuity Central’s piece ‘Concentration Risk High on the Agenda’, and none are anything but common sense. It is somewhat surprising then that it takes a high powered and influential body, working for 12 months with the industry’s leading financial institutions, to reach and publish conclusions that one would have thought were already embedded within the foundations of a professional industry. In my role as managing director - Business Continuity at ICM, I make a point of seeing as many clients and prospects as I can. I do this to feel the pulse of the industry and ensure that I use my role to steer the business in the most appropriate direction. With this approach I am meeting more and more people who are new to the concept and profession of business continuity. Some are senior directors seeking to tackle their business’s need for continuity and others are taking up the disciplines of business continuity management for the first time. What is consistent amongst the first time observations of these so-called inexperienced individuals is that they reach almost entirely the same conclusion as that contained within a lengthy report delivered by the industry’s finest. Now I do appreciate that there is much devil in the detail, and that the excellent tripartite report goes much further than just mere conclusions. It gives good guidance on implementation and future improvements in all respects and these are beyond the simple observations of the newcomers. What does continue to surprise me though is that some of the organisations that participated in the exercise, and I suspect many hundreds (if not thousands) that did not, continue to rely on and in some cases renew, business continuity arrangements that simply do not comply with good/established/best practice and would not pass the most basic test of common sense. For me the question arising out the report, both for individuals and organisations, is, at what point do they change current plans and provisions that no longer protect them from modern risks and no longer withstand comparison with their peers? I have been to a number of organisations with long established plans and supplier relationships and seemingly entrenched views and I am left to wonder, both in the light of reports such as this and the freshness of industry newcomers if, for some, it is a case of can’t change – or won’t change? Mike Osborne, managing director – Business Continuity, ICM Computer Group. Make a comment in response to the above article
•Date: 18th August 2006 • Region: UK • Type: Article •Topic: Recovery facilities |
