Embedding Business Continuity in the Organisation

 

John Bartlett CBCI, DBCI

Getting people to think about business continuity and include it in their daily lives is one ofthe most difficult and underestimated aspects of a business continuity programme, yet it can make or break the perception of how successful the programme is. It doesn’t matter how good your resilience and continuity are, if people do not know about it, what to do in an incident or how to maintain it, then you have failed to achieve some of the fundamental principles of implementing business continuity.

This requires communication in the form of education, training and awareness on your organisations business continuity at all levels: staff, management, Directors and key suppliers. Embedding business continuity in the organisation requires an organisational culture change. Organisational culture is often described as ‘the way we do things’, which can be broken down into a collection of shared values, working styles and patterns of behaviour, typically enforced by a set of strong social controls which establish behaviour and control the behavioural patterns. Industry experience has shown that behaviour change initiatives fail to achieve lasting commitment unless attitudes and beliefs are also engaged and corrected. One such attitude which occurs frequently as a barrier to BCM is: ‘it will never happen here’ or ‘it will never happen to us’. In 2003, when embarking on my first BCM project in Oman, I heard these exact comments when discussing BCM threats and risks relating to Cyclones, Hurricanes, floods, industrial disputes and civil disorder/strikes.

 

The extent of successfully embedding BCM into the organisation will be determined by the degree to which individuals change their behaviour, attitudes and beliefs. To measure and assess this we first have to establish a baseline for the level of current awareness. This helps develop a targetted training, education and awareness strategy and allow the measurement of change achieved through the program. This awareness assessment is similar to a Training Needs Analysis which comprises of:

1. Identifying the current level of BCM awareness;
2. Defining the desired level of BCM awareness;
3. Understanding the nature and scope of the gap to be addressed between 1 & 2.

Once the gaps have been identified, it is a case of working out what needs to be communicated and the best way of doing it. This may also require some development in terms of the tools and techniques that will be used.

 

Embedding business continuity within the organisation is a battle of ‘hearts and minds’. People need to know what it is, what it does, what benefit it is to them and what could happen if it doesn’t work or is not maintained. The key messages that need to be delivered and understood can be summarised as the who, what, when, where and why of business continuity, the campaign (or project) will then define how these are best communicated. A key aspect is to ensure all the campaign activities are conducted in a clear, easy to understand and consistent manner so that no misunderstanding, mixed messages or confusion occurs.

 

Who

 

Simply put, who is responsible for what when it comes to business continuity. This includes: 

• What are the roles and responsibilities for establishing and maintaining business continuity?
• What are the roles and responsibilities for investigating, invoking and revoking business continuity?
• Who has ultimate accountability for the above?

The above information may be broken down by function, job title and/or individuals name, such as business continuity manager, department manager, internal audit, corporate communications, human resources, risk management, etc. It is also advisable to implement personal performance measurement criteria for each of these roles to assess whether these activities are being performed as required on an on-going basis. Lastly, there should be one named Senior Manager or Executive at the top level of the organisation who has accountability for business continuity.

 

What

 

This aspect should cover communicating what the roles will be required to do, such as maintaining BIA information, updated Business continuity plans, maintaining recovery facilities, updating IT disaster Recovery plans and facilities, conducting exercises and such forth. Each group of individuals identified above (in the Who section) will require specific briefing and clarification on what is expected from them in their business continuity role and how this relates to their day-to-day role.

 

In addition to the above roles, there will need to be an explanation to all the other staff to explain to them what they may be expected to do (for example, in the event of an incident await instructions from their manager or after a fire evacuation wait at the assembly point for instructions).

 

When

 

Having determined and communicated who is involved in business continuity and what they are expected to do, it is important to let them know when they are expected to do it. This will include timing requirements for reviewing and updating: 

• BIA and recovery requirements;
• Business continuity risks;
• Business continuity strategy;
• Business and IT recovery plans;
• IT Disaster Recovery and business recovery facilities;

 

It will also be necessary to communicate how and when issues and problems need to be escalated, to whom, how they will be managed and who is entitled to make decisions regarding business continuity, IT Disaster Recovery and the issues/problems.

 

Where

 

This part should communicate where people are expected to go in the event of an incident if business continuity is invoked. Should they go home, proceed to the business recovery site, meet at the nearest hotel, go to the IT Disaster Recovery site, etc. A clear plan of who may be required to conduct essential activities, when and where they will perform them should be communicated.

 

Why

 

This is most probably one of the most important aspects to communicate. It needs to be individually relevant to each group identified above and each function. Individuals need to relate to the need for business continuity, the benefit it brings and the protection it provides.

 

How

 

This aspect will vary from organisation to organisation and covers the methods that can and will be used to communicate the information above, the tools & techniques, which may consist of: 

• Posters;
• Newsletters;
• Computer Based Training;
• E-Learning;
• BCM awareness DVD’s;
• Email briefings;
• Verbal team briefings;
• Awareness sessions;
• Trips to the business recovery site and/or IT Disaster Recovery site;
• Individuals involvement in testing;
• Inclusion of business continuity in induction programs;
• Management presentations;
• A business continuity intranet site/pages.

 

   

 

 

 

Developing a response for the unexpected

“The only thing harder than planning for an incident, is having to explain why you didn't.”

 

John Bartlett CBCI, DBCI

A number of organisations believe that, somehow, they are different and unlikely to experience or suffer from an incident, the “it will never happen to me” attitude. More often than not, they are wrong. No organisation wants to be affected by an incident or expects it, but that does not mean that they should not consider and plan a response in case it does happen. 

Developing and implementing a response to incidents and disruptions is at the core of Business Continuity. It can determine how your organisation is perceived and whether your business survives. It consists of ensuring the appropriate plans are developed and communicated; the required infrastructure and facilities are implemented to support the plans; and completing the necessary risk treatments to achieve the desired Business Continuity strategy defined and agreed (see previous article).

Stages

No matter what the incident or serious disruption, there are five overlapping stages of the response, each of which needs to be considered and included within the planning. These stages are:

Emergency – the immediate response and actions that should be considered and if necessary taken, for example evacuation of a building;

Incident Management – the management and coordination of a response to an incident, for example deciding priorities and communicating with stakeholders.

Continuity – the initial response to ensure that essential activities can continue at their minimum level (as defined in the Continuity Requirements Analysis).

Recovery – the actions and activities required to recover additional important activities and increase the essential activities up to a sustainable level above the minimum level.

Resumption – the activities and actions required to return the organisation back to its desired state of operation, which is considered to be “normal” operations. This stage is sometimes referred to as the “Return to normal” stage.

Within each of these stages, most organisations will need to consider activities that fall within either a strategic, tactical or operational context. These three levels should be considered and addressed for each of the 5 response stages above.

Plans

Once you have discussed and decided on appropriate responses for your organisation, the appropriate individuals to be involved in each context (strategic, tactical and operational) should be identified along with how decisions, actions and communication will operate between them. The responses and corresponding structure should then be documented.

The purpose of a Business Continuity Plan (BCP) is to provide guidance, not to be too prescriptive, detailed and complex. This will defeat its purpose, reduce the likelihood of it being used and make it time consuming to maintain. A BCP should include all the necessary and essential information, but be concise, accessible and easy to follow. There is no “one size fits all” definitive structure that is appropriate for all organisations, but there are numerous examples of BCP’s on the internet. The ones which are appropriate for you will depend upon your organisation. However, Business and BCM knowledge should be combined to determine the optimum Business Continuity response structure for your organisation, and each plan should have an owner, be regularly reviewed, tested and validated - then updated if necessary.

Within large organisations it is reasonable to expect there to be a number of different plans covering aspects of the recovery stages, for example a Crisis/Incident Management Plan, Business continuity/recovery plans for each department, IT disaster Recovery plan and a “return to normal” plan. These may be complimented with specialist plans or procedures to deal with different types of incident such as evacuation, product recall, stakeholder/media communication, social media management, pandemics (not to be confused with specific threat scenarios). Within small organisations or SMEs, a number of these plans may be combined together.

Infrastructure and facilities

All Business Continuity responses and strategies will require resources, including people, infrastructure and facilities, whether the strategy is to operate from someone’s home, or commercial premises. Someone will need to do something and will need to use something to do it. The BIA and CRA previously undertaken will identify the essential items required and how quickly they are required; the agreed strategy will define how they should be provided. The essential part in planning and implementing the response is to ensure these requirements can be provided when needed, and the necessary provisions are implemented and tested to ensure this can happen.

Technology is at the core of most businesses these days and most organisations struggle to operate without it. Whether it be a large data centre with multiple, complex servers, data storage and communication links, or whether it is simply a GSM, laptop and internet connection. Developing a response, includes implementing the strategy for technology and proving its capability to support the business during the response stages. This may be spare GSMs, a backup data centre, replication of data storage, spare maintenance parts, additional supplies of PCs, laptops and printers or duplicate communication links.

In addition to the technology, people require somewhere to work and facilities to assist their working. This is true of a Crisis/Incident response team and also the people required to continue essential business activities. Facilities may include office space, desk, chair, telephone, fax, photocopier, filing cabinets and such forth. If the organisation is involved in manufacturing, there may also be a requirement for plant and machinery. These should be identified and provisions implemented to ensure they can be available when required.

Risk Treatment

As part of achieving the desired and agreed business continuity strategy, it is important that the agreed treatment for business continuity risks have been implemented, thereby reducing the likelihood or impact if certain incidents or disruptions do occur. The response plans should integrate into the risk treatment plans and ensure methods are implemented to identify when a risk materialises and the point at which escalation is required in case it develops into an incident or disruption which requires activation of part or all of the response plans. The risk treatments should also be regularly reviewed and monitored to ensure they are still appropriate and achieve the desired results.

Not what it seems

I was walking my dog, Barney recently when someone stopped to say hello. To him, not me – he’s always the first one that people talk to, I can’t think why. “I love Springer Spaniels”, she said, when she eventually acknowledged my presence, “in fact I have two myself”. 

Andy Osborne
Consultancy Director, Acumen
Author of Practical Business
Continuity Management

"Actually he's a Field Spaniel" I replied, to which she asked "are you sure? He looks like a Springer".
 

I pointed out that whilst his markings are quite Springer-like, Field Spaniels are generally a bit shorter, a bit stockier and a bit squarer-faced than Springers (and a tad more expensive, but I kept that one to myself as I thought she might take it the wrong way).

“Oh” she responded, “he does look like a Springer though”.

This conversation isn’t at all unusual. In fact it’s quite a regular occurrence. On a slightly different, though related note, when my kids were quite young, a similar(ish) thing used to happen with monotonous regularity. They looked quite alike to the casual observer and would sometimes be mistaken for twins. That in itself was fairly understandable I suppose, but we’d occasionally have some bizarre conversations as a result.

One day my wife was in a local supermarket, with both boys in tow. At the checkout the woman behind her asked if they were twins. ”No, there’s twenty months between them”, my wife replied.

“Are you sure?” asked the woman, “they certainly look like twins”.

“No, they’re not twins” my wife replied, but the woman was having none of it and continued to dispute my wife’s assertions. Somewhat exasperated, Mrs Oz said “Look, I was there at the birth of both of them and I’m pretty sure I remember. They definitely aren’t twins.”

At which point the woman turned to the checkout operator and said “Would you say they’re twins?”

In a similar vein, it’s very easy for the uninitiated to assume that something that looks a bit like a Business Continuity plan actually is one. After all, it says ‘Business Continuity Plan’ on the front cover and it seems to have the sort of information in it that you’d expect to see.

But sometimes you have to look past the superficial bits to get to the reality. Sometimes, when you dig a bit, it becomes apparent that what, on the surface, is a convincing looking Business Continuity plan doesn’t actually have any substance to it – perhaps because it’s based on assumptions that have never been validated (or are just plain wrong); or because despite the fact that it contains lots of names and ‘phone numbers, those named have little if any awareness of the plan or their roles and responsibilities within it; or because it’s never been tested; or because it’s full of holes. Still, it looks a bit like a Business Continuity plan so it must be one, mustn’t it?

There’s a saying that goes something like “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck”. Which may well be true. In fairness though, there’s really no mistaking a duck. But if it looks a bit like a Springer, walks a bit like a Springer and barks a bit like a Springer, it might just be a Field Spaniel. And just because two kids are about the same height and both have blonde hair it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re twins.

…And just because a document looks a bit like a Business Continuity plan it doesn’t necessarily mean it really is one.

If you would like to find out more about how to write a Business Continuity plan, the BCI offers a one-day training course entitled "Writing Business Continuity Plans".

A bumpy landing

I've just finished doing one of those straightforward "I'll knock that off in a day or two" type

Andy Osborne
Consultancy Director, Acumen
Author of Practical Business
Continuity Management

jobs. It only took me seven days. Over a period of four and a half weeks. The last stint used up pretty much the whole of my weekend. As a result, I now have the backache from hell, serious hockey withdrawal symptoms and a bad case of boarder's knee. That's floorboarder's, rather than snowboarder's, knee by the way - I don't think they suffer particularly from sore knees, although most of them must suffer terrible frostbite of the derrière from all that sitting in the snow, but that's another story (see "

Ski boots and celery").

Anyway, the straightforward little job in question was replacing the floorboards on the landing at chez Oz. It's not as if it's a big landing or anything. Neither should it have been particularly tricky. Yes, there are a few corners and a couple of nooks and crannies but nothing particularly complicated, particularly for the seasoned DIY virtuoso I modestly consider myself to be.

No, the problem was that someone had been there before me. Several someones by the look of it. Our house is a hundred-and-something years old, so I sort of realised that some alterations had been done over the intervening years. In fact I've come across several examples of previous owners' "improvements" as we've worked our way through it making our own alterations - most of which slowed things down or bumped up the costs, or both. So why I thought this little job would be any different is beyond me.

 

I'll spare you the anoraky details - suffice it to say that most of the time was spent putting right someone else's efforts, which exercised my plumbing, electrical, joinery and metalwork skills as well as my general DIY ability. And my sanity.

 

I don't know about you, but in my experience it's all too often a similar story when updating someone else's business continuity plans. What should be a straightforward job turns into a monster undertaking because someone without the necessary skills or experience has had a go.

 

One of the most common findings is that the plans contain all sorts of "stuff" - anything and everything even vaguely related to business continuity that the well-meaning but inexperienced DIY-er could find and has enthusiastically, though somewhat misguidedly, pounced on in a frenzy of copying and pasting. The result is a document filled with all kinds of superfluous padding, from fire evacuation procedures to standard operating procedures to the contents of the yellow pages.

 

More important, however, is the usual accompanying lack of any proper analysis or strategy, let alone any training or awareness raising or exercising and testing. In other words, the business continuity equivalent of the useless and, in some cases, slightly dangerous contents of the void under my landing floorboards.

 

DIY can sometimes save money in the short term. Longer term, however, it can be quite costly to put right someone else's mistakes. There are, therefore, occasions when it's sensible to get some expert help rather than simply having a go yourself.

 

My next straightforward DIY job involves more floorboarding - this time the bathroom. Still, It's not a huge bathroom - I should be able to knock that off in two or three days tops!
Follow me on Twitter : 
Read my blog 
Link with me on LinkedIn 
 

Debate Unlimited – A glimpse into the Executive Forum

With this year’s Executive Forum running on 12^th and 13^th June in Brussels, it seems a good



Lee Glendon CBCI
Head of Research & Advocacy

time to look back at the two earlier Forums.  What does happen when 600+ years of BC experience converges on Brussels each year for two days?

 

As a recap, the purpose of the Forum is to generate informed debate among experienced BC professionals wrestling with ideas about the strategic direction of business continuity, while keeping a firm eye on what is achievable within a real organisation.

 

Perhaps, the two most memorable ideas that emerged from the 2011 Forum, was that ‘business continuity is not about compliance, it is about embedding resilience through silent running’ and secondly that a key benefit of BC was to identify and prevent ‘sideways bleeding’.   

The debate on compliance started with an academic view that BCM was about compliance:  BCM had become a discussion, which assumed that you can stop things happening if only people followed the rules; BCM lacked emotional intelligence and was seen as a tax on people’s jobs in some organisations; and standards weren’t helping either as they were based on bad organisations and stifled creativity.  With the gauntlet firmly thrown down, an electrifying discussion ensued which ultimately led to the conclusion that BC should actually free-up minds, as it actually assumes that things do go wrong!  While it was acknowledged that ‘tick-box’ might be the starting point for BC, it is not the final destination. There is a need to develop a roadmap and engage and sustain the interest of top management to realise the full potential that BC can bring.

As part of the debate on compliance, there had been extensive discussion around whether BC should look for value add, let alone articulate the next step of what the value would be.  Some asserted that BC was not about helping the financials and in the short term it was a cost, and others argued that adding value is not the same as stopping failures from bringing down the business.  Some questioned whether raising the ability of the organisation to respond to incidents before a major disruption occurred was adding value or capability.   In a sign of conversations to come, one delegate felt that the value add of BC was to be found in facilitating the mission of the organisation and its contribution to the sustainability of the organisation.

The ‘sideways bleeding’ idea came out of a workshop discussion where one participant articulated that external strategy consultants had been retained by their top management to bring about significant cost reductions.  The consultants advocated a vertical approach to securing the costs savings in IT.  The BC team could see the consequences of this initiative as the savings secured in one area of the organisation were effectively nullified by increasing costs and productivity losses in other areas.  This generated a healthy debate about the service that BC professionals should be offering their organisation – while the operational level BC service may be well established in many firms, what would a strategic level service look like?

The 2012 Forum picked up the challenge of defining the strategic level service and identified its key components from developing a centre of excellence in contingency and continuity to engaging top management through crisis response and focusing on the risks that concern them through exercising and scenario analysis.  Value measurement became a hot topic of debate with a very blunt statement from one delegate that reporting to executives that you were doing the job they pay you to do was not ‘adding value’ and BC professionals should take advantage of reporting structures to articulate the value that BC could bring beyond what was expected i.e. compliance to regulations.   Two areas dominated subsequent discussions:  supply chain resilience and horizon scanning.

The academic re-framing of supply chain complexity in terms of layers and networks rather than supply chains was brought to life over the two days with examples ranging from overlooking single points of failure beyond tier one suppliers to unforeseen cascading risks at the logistics level.   One organisation highlighted how its ability to maintain its supply chain during the Arab Spring - through preparedness and enhanced security - secured increased market share.    Supply chain risk was confirmed by all as one risk that can raise the profile and relevancy of BC.  But where should you start?   The advice was to use your analytical skills and look for single points of failure and examine outsource deals; from here you can offer to run an exercise and see what you learn – you may well highlight unknown vulnerabilities and win the mandate to bring in BC.

Horizon Scanning was seen as both a technique to change the conversation with executives from general loss scenarios to a more engaging discussion of specific threats and their strategic consequences.  It was seen as an essential source of developing a situational picture to improve not just the response to events but anticipation of events as well.  The ‘BC radar’ was introduced as an accessible model to set requirements for capability development and ensure readiness in the right areas.

Finally, in 2012 the Open Forum sessions were brought into the programme.  Here delegates proposed and prioritised seven topics of their own choosing to take advantage of the collective experience and expertise of fellow delegates.  Topics included the establishment and composition of ‘resilience councils’, the synergies between BCM and Security disciplines, and Eurozone contingency planning.  For those who take a look at the 2013 programme they will see that some of these topics are going to be developed further this year.

The Executive Forum is a rather unique event:  it seeks to bring together best practice from within the profession while drawing on inspiration from outside.  Participants leave refreshed and invigorated, ready to march towards the sound of gunfire!

Notes:

The Reports from the 2011 and 2012 Forums will be available to purchase from the BCI Shop in May 2013.

To find out more about this year’s Forum please visit the BCI website: http://www.thebci.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=379&Itemid=293