UPDATED: Crunch time for the BCI? Further responses…

Below is more feedback to last week’s Continuity Central article which highlighted concerns raised by some Business Continuity Institute members. To add your own comments e-mail editor@continuitycentral.com

Read the article at www.continuitycentral.com/feature088.htm

Read previous responses at www.continuitycentral.com/news01224.htm

Stewart Drever, MBCI

As a relatively new member of the BCI (15 months to be exact) I thought it might be worthwhile sharing my thoughts on the organisation.

I joined as our group policy required all full-time professionals in BCM to become members. My employers very kindly meet the fees since it was their requirement for me to join. I didn't previously feel the need to join as I wasn't too sure what the value to me would be - I'd have some more letters after my name but it didn't gain me any advancement in salary and it didn't make me any better at my job. There was a perception I got from others around me that it was 'easy' to become a member and to be honest I thought the assessment process was a little lightweight. I'm also intrigued on the comments on the lack of international focus from the BCI as I'm located in Scotland and felt that they didn't really offer much to us Scots either - most events endorsed by the BCI were in the south of England.

Now I've said all that I do believe joining was the right thing to do. The focus on BCM from regulators, auditors and the likes has increased dramatically in the last few years and I do appreciate the work the BCI does in guiding these people in what they should be looking at. As the BCI produces the GPG and influences PAS56 and other similar publications at least the professionals in the industry are being measured against the same standards they operate to and have helped to create.

Even the lack of Scottish focus is slowly being addressed with the BCI Scotland Forum recently holding its first meeting. My earlier belief that becoming a member couldn't make me any better at my job will most definitely be proved wrong by sharing knowledge and experiences with fellow professionals from other organisations.

I do believe that the BCI has its place in the industry as a not for profit entity. Its ability to influence all types of organisation interested in BCM is a vital factor that would be diluted if it were to become more commercially focused. There may be a place for a closer relationship with the DRII as some individuals may wish to demonstrate competence through exams although a more formal continuing professional development (CPD) scheme would be more beneficial for those who have been in the industry for longer. CPD accreditation would at least show the individual's skills were current and being actively maintained and developed.

Mike Hill, FBCI

Firstly, people should not forget that the BCI still offers value for money in terms of its subscription rates, how many other professional Institutes offer full membership for approx £100 a year?

As John and Ann had been standard bearers for such a very long time it is very easy to see why nobody thought they would ever leave! The Board have had to act quickly in order to maintain some sort of 'continuity'.

I do believe that Board representation may not be totally representative of the membership and I would like to see more opportunities for members to have the option of being on it, the current system of election is a bit 'old school tie'.

I think the BCI needs to decide (all members) whether its wants to remain as it is or wants to go to the next level, ie chartered with formal entry requirements etc eg like Health & Safety, Engineering etc.

lastly the DRII and the BCI need to get in a room together and not come out until there is some sort of joint understanding about who does what, where, when etc. Currently the DRII are cutting a swathe through Europe with its courses etc. Opportunities that potentially the BCI are missing.

Andrew Hiles, FBCI

I was a founding member of the BCI, the first Fellow and my membership is #1. I therefore have a great emotional attachment to the BCI.

When the membership took full responsibility for the BCI, some ten years ago, I was very disappointed that my recommendation of a merger with the DRII was rejected, despite the work I and others had done to make this possible at that time. The members' reticence went way back to the history of the DRII, which originally was very IT focussed and the older BCI members had reservations over the DRII's historic dependency on funding from the publisher of the Disaster Recovery Journal - a short-term issue, quickly resolved. We now see the financially robust, independent and BC focussed DRII entering Europe and the rest of the world in force, while an underfunded BCI is struggling substantially to increase its membership.

We also see the DRII as far more accessible than the BCI to prospective members. I and my colleagues work world-wide and always take the opportunity to promote the BCI, but it is increasingly frustrating when there is no exam they can take locally and when they have not been allowed a local interview, although I have offered to do so. Over the last five years, there must be over 150 prospective members to my knowledge that simply lost interest because of this inaccessibility. The DRII, on the other hand, has a worldwide accessible exam, very understandable to the cultures within which my company works (which includes regular activity in the Middle East and Pacific Rim as well as North America and occasionally South America). To put it bluntly, I think that, unless the BCI changes its membership processes, it will never make the progress of which it is capable.

I still believe that the two organisations would be better as one, pooling resource and taking the best of each. I have great respect for the energy and vision both of John Sharp and of the BCI Board - but I have equal respect for the key players in the DRII, many of whom I have met and some of whom I have shared conference platforms with. I do tend to agree with the point in the article about the difficulties of consistent leadership with a frequently changing Board. Like the other professional institutes I have belonged to (British Computer Society, Institute for Management of Information Technology) I have never personally had a tangible benefit from my membership - except to put the letters after my name. More importantly, however, the BCI has provided good service to the BC industry in its involvement in standards and in raising the BC profile.

I have consistently supported, and will continue to support and promote the BCI at every opportunity. However, I also strongly believe that one united force would be better than two competing forces within the BC world.

Dr. Jim Kennedy, MBCI

I agree with Mike Faithfull. I believe that there is a strong difference between BCI and DRI. The most important being that the BCI has long been recognised for adding significant contributions as an organisation to the common body of BCDR knowledge. I too would be strongly opposed to any merger with DRII. MBCI and FBCI members have over time developed experience that no test could have determined.

I believe that BCI is a world recognised organisation and will continue to have an important role in shaping business continuity internationally in the 21st century.

Paul Kirvan, FBCI

Following are my comments regarding the article. Nice piece!

General comments
Having been involved with the BCI from the very beginning (Member No. 20, and the first American to serve on the Board) it has definitely been what we could describe as "interesting times". I chose the BCI certification over other options because I was impressed with how the programme was developed and executed. Despite its roots in the Survive organisation the BCI has made an excellent transition to standalone status. It has probably done more for growth and acceptance of the business continuity profession globally than any other group, with perhaps the notable exception of Survive and a few groups elsewhere in the world. The BCI is moving toward its next iteration, and I would expect it to succeed the same as in the past.

Leadership
BCI's original executive officer, John Marsh, FBCI (hons), did an outstanding job launching the organisation, and it's highly appropriate to commend John's efforts. As John Marsh moved on to other activities, the BCI selected John Sharp, a former executive with British Telecom who took the leadership at BCI and was instrumental - along with many fine BCI board members - in expanding the BCI into a centre of excellence and influence. It's inevitable that someone who pushes the bounds of an organisation will receive both praise and condemnation. John Sharp has received plenty of both, surely well deserved, but that's to be expected when one is making great strides. Regrettably, we've seen some of the BCI's most knowledgeable and compassionate members leave the organisation in recent years. Personally, I've been of the opinion that if you don't have people angry at you, you probably aren't doing anything worthwhile. However, that probably needs to be balanced by "all things in moderation".

Lack of value
Considering that there are currently, in the world, no less than six different business continuity certification options, the BCI has set the bar very high indeed. It's always difficult trying to generate value in a charity organisation; there are always costs to consider versus what can be produced. However, considering that the BCI is visible in so many different events and professional activities, and has been so influential at government levels as well as in the business sector, its value to the profession is almost immeasurable. Looking at the basic necessities, we have a regular publication and a decent website. The BCI's charter only allows it to do certain things, and if members want more value - however "value" is defined - it may make sense to change the BCI charter or the type of business model.

Lack of communication
This is always a challenge for any organisation. Availability of e-mail, chat rooms, and instant messaging certainly provides many opportunities for communication. But it takes people to communicate, and a limited administrative staff simply cannot generate all the messages one might like. Of course we would like to see more communication with the BCI secretariat, but it's probably more important to simply get e-mails answered in a timely fashion. We'd all like that - but we're all so busy it's hard to be responsive to everyone.

Financial stability
The BCI clearly has growth opportunities outside the UK. Frankly, it hasn't done enough to encourage membership from the Americas, particularly North America, a huge repository of prospects, and South and Central America as well. While there are BCI representatives in numerous other countries, it seems that there ought to be a more robust programme to encourage these representatives to perform more membership development. And to increase membership in other countries, the in-country reps need support from the secretariat to be effective. But of course all this takes money.... It's certainly good to read that the BCI is solvent; the challenge now is how to best leverage those assets and generate greater revenues than in the past.

Global issues
Despite the BCI's roots in the UK it traditionally focused globally. The BCI founders had the right idea from the very beginning; all it took was execution and follow-through. With a limited executive staff and periodically changing board members, it's got to be very difficult to maintain a full head of steam on a global basis. As many parts of the world are faced with threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, an organisation like the BCI ought to be in the forefront of boosting global awareness of the issues.

Rex Pattison, FBCI

In response to your request for feedback on the future of BCI here is my contribution.

I believe this is a healthy debate but one we have been over a number of times from an "overseas point of view".

This is my personal viewpoint which has not altered since I became on of the first Canadian FBCIs in 1996.

There is a need for some level of assurance of competency and ethical standards to distinguish those with a proven track record and knowledge, from those who simply adopt the title of business continuity professional because they think it can get them work.

Here in Canada many of us originally became certified as a means of personal accomplishment rather than because the accreditation had a meaning in the workplace. Our assumption was that the BCI would promote the accreditation to provide it value. This has not happened as the original concept of BCI Canada operating as a franchise with its own budget to fund promotion was shot down.

Here in Canada the main accreditation body is DRI. It has a Canadian franchise (DRI Canada) which is also a main source of business continuity training in the country. DRI is very visible at conferences here and in the US and is therefore more likely to be noticed by employers.

The debate between BCI and DRI has raged elsewhere and I shall not repeat it here. Suffice it to say I am more comfortable with the BCI approach and that is what I have sold to my own organisation - to the point that all our full time business continuity consultants are either Fellows or Members of BCI.

Also our BCI Forum is a good meeting of professional thinking for the country. The BCI members may be a little thin on the ground but they tend to be genuinely interested in furthering the profession.

My problem is - can there be a future for BCI in Canada if it doesn't grow? We need to promote the value of the certification to employers and that takes funds. At the moment all our Canadian fees go to the UK with little obvious return here in Canada. We need to provide members with something that they can't get through the internet or why fess up the fees? Up to now my company has covered my fees but I retire in November - do want to spend my own money when my personal reputation is what will get me consulting work - not a certification that no one has heard of.

If BCI is to be truly international it must think outside the "UK Box". It must develop a strategy for operating in other countries that isn't UK centric or we will be fighting the Colonial Wars all over again. I think the product is good – let’s go about making it work effectively worldwide - because ultimately it is the global recognition that will give it strength.

John Robinson, FBCI

Hearsay alone suggests that the BCI is in a mess. I have received no official communication however its leaders sound as if they are dissolving hard-won credibility in tiffs that leak inevitably to the members and businesses that fund its existence. This smacks of a ‘power struggle’ in a place where there should be little power to struggle over. My view is that we need the culture of a sound not-for-profit institution – not a cutthroat commercial enterprise. Perhaps we need a stronger constitution or clearer means for members to influence and guide the BCI.

Incidentally, the last survey of members took the form of a ‘salary and career survey’. This rang alarm bells, smacking of commercial involvement by a third party recruitment agency. Not quite what I would expect. Will they profit much from our data, I wonder? Will we? Surely a more useful survey would probe members’ expectations, opinions, ideas and professional sense of direction so we become better aligned with our market requirement? Or am I being naïve.

Leadership
Personally, I believe our leadership should be formed as a committee, made up of representatives from the different facets of our industry; perhaps a ‘big business’ BC manager, an SME director, a BC consultant and an industry pundit or journalist. It should also perhaps consider a separate vendor forum. Together they might exert the right forces on our direction. I do not believe an individual will achieve this as effectively.

Lack of value
First, the GPG / PAS56 spreadsheet alone is worth far more to an organisation than the annual fee. Perhaps the issue here is that it is available to non-members.

Second, MBCI is a requirement for most, if not all BC-related roles in the UK now; it benchmarks their capability against other unqualified individuals, giving them a better chance of securing better jobs. Those without it are excluded. Again, worth far more than membership fees.

In terms of corporate members, I agree totally with Julia Graham. - they need to either buy into the BCI’s stated aims or look elsewhere.

Lack of communication
I agree in part, although I recall being invited to comment on PAS56 in its early days. How long would PAS56 have taken if a ‘full and open consultative process’ had been adopted? Another year perhaps? Five? Never? As it stands, PAS56 is still a specification and is available for comment. At least this way we have something concrete to use and improve upon and I for one embrace it.

Financial stability
The BCI should, as Julia says, be sound but not cash-rich. This sends the right messages to members and corporates alike. I would add that it should be solidly value-focused.

The BCI should seek new means for gathering revenues recognising its two key assets of knowledge and allegiance. One route for this might be licensing consultants to train people to become members. If only BCI accredited trainers can offer this, it becomes valuable, generating a revenue stream. This could extend to whole-company education programmes.

Similarly, the BCI might look to become the source of other new knowledge and information assets, such as ‘plug-in’ compliant sections of procedure gleaned from local authorities that tell companies what to expect of them. This would benefit all involved and again, a levy could be charged.

Global issues
The UK invented insurance and despite our comparatively benign environment, we are highly risk-averse. Yet even we have problems selling BCM, despite the terrorist threat etc. Do we really think we’ll find it easy to penetrate cultures that are different from our own? E.g. Why do we (in the UK) not all subscribe to the DRI? Answer… because it is not like us, it is far away, it is unfamiliar. Maybe the answer is to make the BCI a non-geographic virtual organisation, built around a website with a ‘board’ that does not physically meet, using webcams to operate committees and clinics.

The BCI is a kind of club with a membership test that confers value on members. People join clubs because they perceive benefit. People in other countries will join the club only if their business sector requires membership or offers greater salary in return for membership recognition. There is little point in setting up BCI in a country where business perceives no need or a different need. We need to sell BCI to (overseas) businesses first, then members. So, members need an Institute that adds to their professional worth in the eyes of the LOCAL business community. Marketing needs to reflect this. The BCI needs to become truly multi-cultural and multi-faceted to do this.

It might be useful to compare BCI with other institutions such as the IEE, the BCS etc. What they achieve, why and how. What do we do the same? What is different? Why? For example, a key factor against us is the small size of the BC community (the BCS numbered 100,000 some 20 years ago).

To add your own comments e-mail editor@continuitycentral.com

•Date: 19th May 2004 •Region: UK / World •Type: Article •Topic: BC general
Rate this article or make a comment - click here
MORE COMMENTS ADDED 21st MAY