|
 UPDATED WITH READER COMMENTS
During March and April Continuity Central conducted a survey about the merits of business continuity software versus standard Microsoft Office tools such as Word and Excel.
In total 215 responses were received, with 44 percent of respondents stating that they only use Microsoft Office tools for creating and maintaining their business continuity plan(s). 37.5 percent use a specialist business continuity planning software tool and 18.5 percent use a combination of specialist business continuity planning software and Microsoft Office tools.
Respondents were asked to explain their answer and these are reproduced below. They have been edited to remove references to specific software packages and have been spell-checked, but apart from that they are reproduced verbatim:
Why have you made the above choice within your organization?
Comments from those who use only Microsoft Office tools:
* $$$.
* Already there - no incremental costs involved.
* Availability, compatibility and cost.
* BCP software might be good, but it just doesn’t fit in our organization.
* Budget and simplicity.
* Budget restrictions and the fact that off the shelf BCM software can't be tailored for our organisation, rather we would need to tailor our organisation to the software. The effort to put in such software does not produce a value proposition i.e. no real gains on a day to day basis. There is value in having instantaneous data available in a crisis, however because we haven't ever had a crisis, then management don't feel the pain....and it is difficult to show that pain. The BCM team is very small and a specialist project effort would be required to install the software, at the same time as we are undertaking Business As Usual activities, which is not an attractive option. In short the appetite is not there.
* Budget.
* Business units’ knowledge of MS Tools vs training on special software.
* By-in by all those who have to maintain plans (no training need).
* Cheap.
* Cheaper and more readily available that software. Templates can be rapidly distributed and amended when necessary. Everyone knows MS tools and no need for specialist training.
* Continuity should be an integrated part of day-to-day work. Having a separate tool creates boundaries for the business and sends signs that this is indeed rocket science.
* Convenience, easy access, plus buying a specialist tool requires the inconvenience of meeting vendors, arranging demos, convincing management to spend potentially large amounts of money, my current working environment, I don’t have time for all this...
* Cost and complexity of specialist tools.
* Cost and ease.
* Cost and implementation globally difficult.
* Cost and implementation times.
* Cost, ease of use.
* Cost, organisation size.
* Cost.
* Cost.
* Costs related to a specialist tool, Problems implementing it across the government.
* Costs.
* Dissatisfaction with current software available.
* Don't need many of the functions of BC software.
* Ease of use and cost.
* Ease of use by non-practitioner SMEs, cost, support requirements.
* Ease of use for the departments that have to update plans and cost.
* Ease of use, and expense.
* Ease of use, conforms to our methods, flexibility.
* Ease of use, familiarity, lower training costs.
* Ease of use.
* Easier, cheaper.
* Easiest and quickest option available - with no on costs.
* Easily configurable to our exact requirements - ie flexibility.
* Easy for everyone to use and access, no training issues and cost.
* Easy to customize and to maintain.
* Easy, low tech, was done so in the past.
* Everyone can use MS Office software packages, they would need training in using a specialist BC software tool. Also our CIS department would first need to test any new software before it could go on to the company's network.
* Everyone in the company has access to these tools.
* Everyone knows how to use the MS Office suite; most groups prefer a universal template that they can use to guide them; there is no additional software, process, or tools to maintain and train; MS Office is compatible with other common databases and sources of corporate info; there is no vendor to pay or rely upon for support; this is an international company and hosted services are not efficient or easily accessible; we can use our internal processes and BCP programs to manage the company response/recovery/restoration functions.
* Everyone uses MS Office daily. Ease of use!
* Expense of tailoring the solution to fit the organisation, differing business units requiring different formats and approaches, plus the ongoing costs for licensing and training that a specific tool would need.
* Financial.
* For both cost and speed of implementation (e.g. no user training). BCP were fairly simple. Now BCPs are more sophisticated and numerous, currently seriously looking at BCM software tool option.
* For ease of user interaction for updating and printing plans, plus previous bad experience with BC planning software.
* It's cheaper than a BCM tool; there is no management support for spending the money for a BCM tool.
* I've used ‘big package’ tools in the past, but have found that the general population is better prepared to use Microsoft tools that they use every day for other functions. (Plus it is a lot cheaper).
* Made for me; I'm a consultant. BTW, also use OpenOffice.
* Maintain costs and standardized capabilities with other MS products.
* Microsoft Office tools provide an unconstricted work environment.
* Minimal need for user training, cost.
* More control, ease of updates, training for users / key personnel etc, less cumbersome.
* No additional cost; known capabilities.
* No budget for specialist business continuity planning software tools.
* No budget.
* No decent alternative for the small business user at a sensible cost.
* No other options.
* No resources to dedicate to yet another tool that requires administration and other resources to import company data into the tool.
* No software training required - all know MS Office - and they offer no benefits in the environment that I operate in.
* No training required, and no ongoing issues with training new staff to do BAU maintenance.
* Not allowed to purchase specialist software.
* Office is there and we've never been able to get consensus on a tool.
* Organisation owns the approach, understands it and can develop it.
* Simple to use. No training required.
* Simplicity and user knowledge of the work environment.
* Simplicity.
* Small organisation and needed a simple tool.
* Software is expensive, needs specialist training to use, the people who are trained then move on and more training is required. Software needs to be upgraded, maintained and is often not fit for the purpose of the business. We use standard MS Office word templates and spreadsheets because in a multi-lingual and multi-national organisation it is easier than introducing new software. It is hard enough selling business continuity internally without the added internal sale for software.
* Software too expensive.
* Specialist BC software tools are expensive and inflexible.
* Still in initial phase.
* Templates are already in place; all plan owners are familiar/comfortable with using Word hence plan owners are able to proactively update plans as necessary; No further investment necessary/upgrade; No additional training required for new unit managers.
* The software package we had in the past was outdated and not fit for our current purpose. We are in the process of buying a new bespoke tool.
* The tool we had was too cumbersome to use and we did not use many of the features.
* These tools are ‘standard’ and available at shorter notice, on new equipment. Little additional training required.
* User familiarity and no problems with getting authorisation.
* Using standard MS Office tools is easy and kept simple across our multinational company. We looked at software but a lot of it contained jargon and needed dedicated people to input the data and it was confusing as it did not meet all country requirements. We kept it simple.
* We are a Microsoft business partner.
* We trialled a specialist software tool and spent a lot of time working with it but it did not add any value so we reverted to MS Office.
* Widely accessible by everyone as it is a basic programme on computers. Also it is cheaper.
Why have you made the above choice within your organization?
Comments from those who use a mix of Microsoft Office tools and specialist business continuity software:
* Already have a risk management tool with plans to integrate BCP and also use MS Office.
* BCP software was free at its introduction to the marketplace.
* Because it has a low cost with a good effectiveness. Also, we're more accustomed with these tools, being easier and faster to use.
* Because the specialist BCP software didn't offer the tools needed to complete our BCP practices.
* Chosen for us.
* Cost and maturity of our program. We are moving solely to a speciality tool though the migration takes months.
* Cost.
* Depending on whether we are doing a large organization or small group will depend on the features needed. Microsoft tools are great for managing and documenting information but they don't provide the operational analysis and process dependencies and relationship hierarchies that are available in robust enterprise software.
* Diverse Group with (historically) no common BCM standards or approach. Programme now in hand to resolve this, which will include expansion of use of specialist software.
* Ease of use and efficiency in maintenance of BC plans.
* Ease of use; ability to create dependencies / relationships
* End User usability is key - end users aren't using the specialist software enough to remember how to do stuff.
* Evolution of maturity.
* For easy development and maintenance.
* Funding constraints.
* I like the planning tool, but the resource requirements for keeping it up to date simply exceed budget.
* In transit to new BCM software.
* No one tool provides all the BCP requirements.
* Organisation made the choice for a tool at a high level, but unless you are a dedicated and frequent user of most software packages, they are not easy or intuitive to use. MS Office is better for casual users, ie those who update their plans infrequently.
* Predecessor selected.
* Prefer to use inhouse designed templates, and have a system which is a hybrid.
* Sometimes specialist software can't give you everything you need.
* [Specialist software] not user friendly so migrating to Word.
* Technical DR plans are not handled well in BCP tools.
* The software tool allows much better control over the planning process.
* The specialist tool helps us maintain items that frequently turn over (like employees) at a corporate level, while the MS tools allow for the specialized areas to make the necessary edits as necessary.
* To help push responsibility to the business units.
* We needed additional structure to BCM best practices in addition to the Office tools capabilities.
* We use SharePoint and Office.
* While MS tools are easy to use, when you have a multiplicity of DR/BC plans it is labor intensive to modify them and there is always the possibility of mistakes or omissions. Software planning tools facilitate global changes throughout many plans just by changing a single database record. For example if Joe Smith leaves the company and is replaced by John Doe, by replacing Joe's record with John's in the personnel database, it is possible to change the contact information in all plans.
Why have you made the above choice within your organization?
Comments from those who use only specialist business continuity software:
* A bespoke tool is better able to serve complex BCM needs.
* A BS25999 BC programme has up to six individual documents that need to be tailored and customised. Too much information to maintain manually across individual docs and spreadsheets.
* A database is the best choice.
* All-in-one, Web-based, easy to use.
* Automation of process and maintenance.
* Because it’s very difficult to create and maintain BCPs manually or with Office tools.
* Because the software tool made our job easier.
* Because we need a tool which is integrated, automatic and flexible.
* Better and easier organization of plans and a lot of features.
* Central, integrated repository of information with appropriate access and data security.
* Centralised place for all business continuity information, easy to update, easy to use and able to use in a response.
* Centralized documentation.
* Consistency and functionality.
* Consistency with the plan.
* Consistent look and feel of plans; centralized relational DB for updating contact records; flexibility in user instructions.
* Database and notification as well as structure.
* Document management. Program management. The software provides both.
* Due to the complexity of the organisation and its global requirements.
* Ease of maintenance of plans.
* Ease of planning and management reporting.
* Ease of use and better organization.
* Easier to ensure standardization, report on plan progress/data, and track approvals etc; also ensures secure, 24/7 access to plans.
* Easier to manage and maintain plans.
* Easier to manage the information
* Easier to tailor build to own spec.
* Easier with specialist planning tool.
* Easiest way to move forward quickly rather than build.
* Easy to implement.
* Easy to share, easy to launch, takes a lot of pressure of me.
* Easy to use, easier management of multiple plans, reduced time requirements, price, externally hosted, ensures plans multiple plans are kept in the same format (78 plans).
* Experience, compliance, availability.
* Faster implementation.
* Fits our model.
* Had to adopt tool from previous management scheme.
* Have tried to use MS Office for maintaining BC plans but have always come across problems when tracking changes for audit purposes.
* Have used non-speciality tools (including Lotus Notes - which works even better than MS tools), but speciality tools automate processes better.
* Head Office driven.
* Helps to automate key processes that are required in order to reduce the business impact of unplanned outages.
* Makes business continuity easier.
* Manage the BC process.
* Management across all plans, reporting, database structure.
* Microsoft Office tools are not adequate when creating and maintaining a plan. I would never attempt BCP without a BCP planning tool.
* More effective and more BCM functions.
* Much efficient and effective to maintain the plans.
* Need for sophistication and process.
* Need planning coaches/wizards and a prebuilt database schema and a publishing engine
* Needed a targeted, structured solution.
* Needed structure and additional guidance.
* No-one can possibly use Office to keep up with planning, only use it now for documentation and training.
* One location, integrated data elements and ease of use.
* Require a tool focus-developed for BC and DR data collection, plan design, reporting & database maintenance.
* Scalable globally.
* Size of organisation, reputation and recommendation of other similar size users.
* So we can query against the data.
* Standardization, ease of use, professional results, professional effort put into tool development, ease of access for multiple departments.
* Sustainability.
* The ability to have a more precise plan.
* The decision to move to a software platform was to take advantage of the automation features that an integrated software platform can achieve to foster collaboration between business unit, departments and regions. A software package delivers greater ROI than can be achieved with Word or Excel.
* The need for timely updates and store plans of on the web.
* The size, geographical spread and mix of services and interdependencies.
* The specialist software tool allows different groups of stakeholders within the organisation to maintain large amounts our documentation.
* There is no way that I would attempt to maintain and control the amount of information required in a comprehensive BC plan without a relational database tool - specifically a web-based, web-hosted application.
* To get a one-to-many record relationship to avoid replication.
* Tool has centralized database and walks us through the entire program from BIA, dependencies, planning and testing.
* Total value: hosting, unlimited users, support training all in one.
* Tried to do it using MS Office tools in the past and failed.
* User friendly.
* Wanted a solution that integrated document management and database functionality. In addition, it had to be a SaaS.
* Wanted to use a relational database in order to use the data for other initiatives.
* We don't have to reinvent the wheel - we have a ready-made business continuity product to use; we have the support and expertise of the host company, and our plans are hosted outside our company.
* We have so many plans and keeping a track of them and keeping them consistent in terms of format and content require, we believe, a software tool.
* We required an integrated all-in-one business solution that was easy for our users but also powerful enough to produce meaningful reports for management.
* We wanted to use a tool that came with a built-in BCM framework that we could follow, and one that was easy to use.
* Web enabled, unlimited users and complete BCP/BCM with ERM.
Make a comment.
Detailed response from SunGard
Response from INONI
It would be nice to have the best of both (COTS desktop software and specialty software), with the former (MS Office, Open Office, etc.) used by functional unit personnel (those folks in the business and support functions [eg, Facilities, HR, IT]) to create documents to be "sucked into" the specialty software maintained/used by the dedicated BC staff (a given when specialty software is implemented). The specialty program would of necessity have to export documents (including drawings, charts, spreadsheets) in formats the functional unit personnel can use (e.g., PDF or COTS desktop software formats).
John Glenn, MBCI
Results of this survey are very interesting. I am in the same dilemma of deciding if we will renew our BCP software license for another 3 years, and the results of the survey are very enlightening indeed.
Marichu A. Bernardo, CBCI
•Date: 19th May 2010 • Region: World •Type: Article •Topic: BC software
Rate this article or make a comment - click here
UPDATED 28TH MAY
|
