|
 Allen Johnson responds to Continuity Central’s recent article ‘Improving business continuity testing and exercising’.
Why is business continuity testing a weak area? The list of reasons is a long as your leg but a major reason is in the question!
It is a test. None of this woolly “practice” or “rehearsal” or “walkthrough” verbiage; it is a test. You pass or you fail.
First let us begin by dealing with the customer. Whether the BC person is internal or external matters not. The business is the customer and the business does not do this for a living. The business does something else for a living so carping on about project fatigue or no management time or lack of management resource or it is too expensive or any other simpering reasons this industry regurgitates too frequently, is to comprehensively avoid the real issue.
Let’s look at the real reason. Go get a mirror.
It’s us!
Q. You want a BCP sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you want it to work, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. So you’ll want it to be tested to know that it works - yes?
A. Yes.
So where on earth is the problem of not testing? It is sold up front and not sold as an afterthought. Developing a business continuity plan that actually works should be the driving and principal objective, and if practitioners do not understand this then they completely miss the very reason this industry exists.
Next reason. inexperience.
This industry is riddled with consultants; grey people of incomplete experience and they may be seen to congregate in empathetic groups at industry events. Scratch the surface of the golden résumé and you find it is iron pyrite and there are plenty in this industry that boast a far richer career background than is genuinely the case. And when it is suggested that their work be subjected to the rigours of a test, they scamper for the exit lest the outcome harms their reputation or harms their career, or both. Frankly, if you cannot stand by your work then don’t do it. It can be a hot kitchen.
Next reason. Lack of understanding.
When asked ‘Do you test your plans?’ the questioner assumes his definition of a test is the same as that of the person providing the answer. It is a dangerous assumption and one that will skew the outcome and present an inaccurate picture. There should be a checklist of what a test comprises so that both parties are talking about exactly the same thing.
Next reason. The test has no context.
A test must be the high point of a preparatory cycle of experiences for the testing organisation and the test participants and it is from this simple concept that any successful test may follow.
Next reason. Lack of art.
Done by a worthwhile practitioner, the foundation of a test begins with pragmatic intellectual imagination integrated with the knowledge of what the customer is trying to achieve. Throw them in the deep end with scenarios of bombs exploding or avian flu arriving in flocks of geese, then the point is missed as management teams struggle with civil issues and fanciful scenarios (One internal BC man had the senior management team flying over Paris and being shot out of the sky by a seasonal shower of meteorites - I kid you not.) that are little to do with business continuity. Give them a power outage derived from bad weather conditions at the peak of a critical business cycle then you have something with which they can relate. You have reality and have demonstrated an art to the craft.
Next reason. Lack of passion.
True experience develops confidence and confidence develops passion. Passion is in the sale of the project, it is in the delivery of the project and it is in the management of every element of the project, including the test. If you are not passionate about this, then you just cannot do it.
Next reason. Lack of objectivity.
Make sure the client objectives dovetail with yours. They want a successful test. You want a successful test. It needs to be measurable. To make it happen, then make it objective with KPIs.
Next reason. Lack of ownership.
This industry asks why businesses don’t test. It’s because the majority of consultants in this industry take no ownership; rather they point the finger of blame elsewhere.
Next reason. Buyer ignorance.
The buyer does not know what he does not know and if not explained up front, the significance of a test carries precious little relevance. It is therefore far easier to write the BCP shelfware and the customer parades it when requested by a 3rd party. And since there is rarely any proof to support the notion of a test, let alone the act, then having begged the question “Have you tested?” the answer is virtually irrelevant if no evidence can be provided.
Next reason. There are so many more.
‘Physician, heal thyself’.
Author:
Allen Johnson, Director, Scenaris
Allen.Johnson@Scenaris.co.uk
Make a comment
•Date: 7th August 2008• Region: UK/World •Type: Article •Topic: BC testing and ex
Rate this article or make a comment - click here |
