|
 John Robinson, managing director of INONI, a provider of BCM software, responds to Continuity Central’s recent BCM software survey.
The use of software in business continuity management is a given, the question is, should it be a dedicated proprietary tool or is our office automation software (MS Office, Lotus Notes etc) up to the job? Take a multi-site organization with no business continuity management in place and a mature office software environment. Faced with the prospect of building an effective business continuity management system (BCMS) in the shortest time, which is the best route – dedicated software or the in-house Office suite? Naturally, as a provider I’ll argue the case for dedicated software addressing three areas identified from Continuity Central’s recent survey.
Table A : Key desirable attributes
I identified the following as important factors used by participants in the survey as a basis for selection:
Desirable Software Attribute |
Office Tools |
Dedicated BCM software (based on INONI) |
Available and convenient |
Yes, however, need to build a joined-up BIA, RA, Strategy, Plans for all locations and business units |
Yes, end-to-end hosted BCMS available ‘off-the-shelf’, customisable within days |
Familiar and easy to use |
Yes, users know Office well, but not necessarily the correct use of the forms and spreadsheets typically built for BCM. Careful how you answer this |
Offers a minimum familiar interface that helps users provide a valid response with least effort |
Intuitive and memorable |
Individual activities are familiar, however Office-based BCM usually has workflow and data entry procedures to follow and remember |
Automated workflow, negligible training for end-users, few opportunities for error or omission, optional context-sensitive guidance |
Accessible |
Yes, can usually be accessed from in-house platforms e.g. via a VPN connection |
Yes, secure web access from anywhere |
Flexible |
Yes, easy to customise but can be challenging to apply widespread change. Unconstrained, Office’s flexibility can create issues |
Yes, allows you to customise and control centrally and locally. Ensures data validity where required, allows free text |
Easy to maintain |
Flexible and accessible, may require support to ensure this is carried out properly by end-users |
Yes, straightforward update. Workflow-triggered, with or without central support |
Scalable |
Up to a point. The lack of an embedded framework can make Office-based BCM impractical for some organizations |
Yes, scalable and automated with a centrally controlled embedded framework |
Methodology and organizational fit |
Yes, often used as the basis for in-house methods, so should be capable of a perfect fit |
Yes, designed to accommodate diverse methodologies and organizational structures |
Compatible |
May be compatible with other Office-compatible documents and databases |
Built using MS tools and databases, often with inherent compatibility |
Table B : BCM software challenges
Some of the arguments used against specialist business continuity management software in the survey are considered here:
Argument |
Response |
Too complicated for us |
Office can also appear complex, not to be confused with product richness |
Don't need many of the functions |
Similarly for Office, but again, they are there if you decide you need them |
Takes too long to implement |
Office requires you to build a framework that is supplied by software, then populate it |
Inconvenient to migrate |
Automated tools can generally accelerate migration into software |
Suggests BCM is ‘rocket science’ |
We all use GPS because it makes life easier. A similar reasoning applies here |
Ongoing support requirements |
Office software also needs support and upgrades on a continuous basis |
We need pre-acceptance for in-house use |
A governance control applicable for all new software |
Don’t like the embedded jargon |
Find software you can programme completely |
ICT DR Plans aren’t well supported |
Find software that supports integrated ICT |
The case for business continuity management software
Finally, my greatly simplified interpretation of the business case for BCM software generally is explained below. Inevitably, each component needs to be evaluated on its merits:
The costs of buying and operating BCM software:
• Money (License, hosting, support, upgrades)
• Time (meeting vendors, arranging demos, convincing management, creating buy-in)
…versus the benefits:
• Direct savings (better use of resources)
• Time and convenience (advanced start, automation of time-consuming and low added-value activities)
• Information quality and resulting capability (accessibility, consistency, currency, decisions)
Contributory factors you may like to consider include:
• Starting with a proven framework
• Process automation (long-term saving of time and effort)
• Integrated, with low replication and reduced data entry
• Handles complexity so you can distribute the workload
• Sustainable and permanent, reducing dependency
• Provides centralised and delegated control • Automated management reporting
• Automated workflow
• Scalable and responsive to change
• Built-in consistency and standardisation
• Auditable and accountable
• Allows data to be queried
As a business continuity consultant previously wedded to MS Office, I now see the case for dedicated BCM software as extremely strong for most sizeable organizations, particularly those whose structure, circumstances and business is subject to regular change. Office software is generic, flexible and apparently free but falls short on many counts where true business continuity management advantage is sought.
Contact John at john.robinson@inoni.co.uk
•Date: 11th June 2010 • Region: UK / World •Type: Article •Topic: BC software
Rate this article or make a comment - click here |
