Business Continuity Management (BCM) / Disaster Recovery (DR) Document Templates Available for Small and Medium Businesses!!

3 07 2014

Not every business can spend thousands and thousands of dollars on expensive software packages to get their BCM / DR programs off the ground – or has the time to get software configured and ready for use.

Having experienced these challenges first hand, StoneRoad developed a cheaper alternative: we developed document templates for Business Impact Analysis (BIA), Business Continuity Plans (BCP) and more.

Visit the StoneRoad site and go to the Shop section to view the various templates available and get your program moving with a low cost alternative to expensive software! Each template provides instructions on what information is needed so that you can build your program with less fuss – and with more results!

Here’s just a sample of our document offerings:

1) Test Scope Charter Document (Word Document)
2) Business Impact Analysis (BIA) (Excel Worksheets)
3) Operating Unit Business Continuity Plan (BCP) Template (Word Document)
4) Emergency Employee Logistics & Pandemic Plan (Word Document)
5) Test Executive Summary (Word Document)

…and more. We’re adding new templates all the time to help you. We even have BCM & DR books and ebooks available.

So download what you need and get started!

Happy planning!

Regards,
The StoneRoad Team

“Reduce Suffering Through Disaster Planning”

© 2014, Stone Road Inc.





BCM & DR Books to Help Build Your Program by A.Alex Fullick, MBCI, CBCP, CBRA, v3ITIL

3 07 2014

The message about disasters, disaster planning and business continuity is slowly spreading throughout the globe, as we see more and more organizations beginning to realize the value of preparedness and response activities to protect their operations and instil confidence in those they do business with.

Here at StoneRoad, we’ve seen a spike in people asking us questions and seeking advice on Business Continuity Management (BCM) / Disaster Recovery Programs – and we couldn’t be happier.

So we’d like to remind you that there are some great books by our founder, Alex Fullick, that can help provide great insight into how a good program operates – and how it shouldn’t. The books noted below are available on Amazon.com and at our own shop over at www.stone-road.com.

1) Heads in the Sand: What Stops Corporations From Seeing Business Continuity as a Social Responsibility

2) Business Impact Analysis (BIA): Building the Foundation for a Strong Business Continuity Program

3) Made Again – Volume 1: Practical Advice for Business Continuity Programs

4) Made Again – Volume 2: Practical Advice for Business Continuity Programs

Keep an eye out for the next book by A.Alex Fullick; “Testing Disaster and Business Continuity Plans” expected to launch in the fall of 2014.

Until then, happy planning!!

Regards,
The StoneRoad Team

© 2014, Stone Road Inc.





BCM / DR: eBooks Now Available by A. Alex Fullick (Stone Road Inc)

21 06 2014

We’ve been a bunch of busy beavers here at StoneRoad. We’re very happy to announce that two books by our founder A.Alex Fullick, ‘Heads in the Sand’ and ‘Business Impact Analysis’ are now exclusively available as ebooks at the StoneRoad shop.

Get your copies now using the links below:

Heads in the Sand
OR

https://stone-road.netfirms.com/cart/index.php?main_page=document_product_info&cPath=3&products_id=201&zenid=3d712e28f2680972874f7e4a8d473940

Business Impact Analysis
OR

https://stone-road.netfirms.com/cart/index.php?main_page=document_product_info&cPath=3&products_id=202&zenid=3d712e28f2680972874f7e4a8d473940

‘Like’ Join us on Facebook too at Stone Road Inc.

The StoneRoad Team.
(C) Stone Road Inc, 2014





12 Reasons Why Organizations Will ‘Forget’ What to Do in a Disaster

16 09 2013

Many organizations can build comprehensive BCM program and plans; detailing every action and activity needed to ensure the continued operation of an organization when a disaster strikes. However, even the most comprehensive program and plan can still suffer greatly when they are needed the most because many organizations’ DR team and team members forget what it is they are supposed to do.
There are many reasons for that. Sudden changes in environment can throw people for a loop, as the situation throws chaos into their normal day and it’s easy for people to forget what to do when they are required to do it. Sometimes the reason for plan activities or action items being forgotten occur even before the disaster situation makes itself known.
Below are some of the reasons why people – and organizations – forget their activities before and during a disaster.

1. No Executive Support: It’s easy to forget some initiative within an organization when even the executive leadership don’t support it. After all, if they don’t care for something, why should anyone else? It’s that simple, without executive support people will quickly forget that there is BCM or DR program in place for when a disaster occurs. Even executives will wonder where it is and believe it or not, even without their support having played a part in its development (if at all) will wonder why no one knows what’s going on and why people aren’t performing tasks.

2. No Leadership: Continuing on from #1, people want leadership during a disaster; they believe that those responsible for the organization in good times, is also responsible for the organization during bad times and will provide guidance and leadership on what needs to be done when a disaster occurs. If there is no one taking responsibility for the disaster, then people are left hanging – wondering what to do. This doesn’t mean the leader or coordinator of the response functions is responsible for the disaster, it means they are taking the responsibility to lead the organization resulting of the disaster. Even if employees and members of various DR teams are aware of their activities, they are still looking at the organizations leadership to provide direction and provide answers to any key questions that may come up as a result of specific situations discovered based on the disaster. If executives and/or senior management aren’t part of the decision making process and part of the BCM program, they won’t know what to do or what is expected of them. The executives themselves won’t be aware of the DR/BCM team makeup or what any of the program protocols are. They could end up trying to lead the organization through the disaster, blind.

3. No Plans: One of the biggest reasons people will stand around wondering what to do is that there isn’t a plan – even a bad one – in place for them to activate, reference and follow. In a nutshell, the organization has done nothing to promote any sort of disaster response or planning mechanisms and when disaster strikes, there is no know prioritization of what needs to be activated. All the responses are made up on the spot, which could pose even more problems for the organization. It’s like a jigsaw puzzle; you don’t start putting the pieces together until you know the picture (or at least most people don’t) and you can’t rebuild a corporation after a disaster when you don’t even know what pieces you need first to rebuild it. No plans in place can mean the end of the organization, as it will take too long to figure out what is priority between the business and technology and getting the two to agree to a restoration, recovery and resumption strategy. You can’t ‘wing’ it in a disaster…

4. No Delegation of Authority: It’s often quite comical when someone is required to perform BCM activities, as captured in a DR/BCP or crisis management plan but they aren’t give the authority to do so. This can mean they don’t have the delegation of authority to make decisions or provide guidance to others or they don’t have the IDs and/or passwords to perform functions. It’s like giving someone a car and telling them it is all paid for and its there for as long as they want it but not giving them the key. This is one thing that stops many organizations from performing activities; people don’t have the authority to do anything and thus, they are waiting for direction from others when in fact they are the ones who are supposed to be providing the direction. If someone doesn’t have the right authority to perform activities, they will be a roadblock to other activities and many groups may be standing and waiting around for guidance and information. And further on the point of IDs and passwords; often this information is created and placed in a secure location that people forget about. Rarely are they reviewed and updated and even remembered because they are placed in an online folder, which is no longer available because technology has failed. These IDs and passwords are for use only during a disaster so they rarely get reviewed. These should be part of an annual (at least) review to ensure the people remember where they are and what they are – and remember that these are probably powerful IDs and passwords and only a few key people should know about them to start with. If someone leaves the organization, make sure you change the passwords and remove their ID just in case. When you test, try activities using these profiles to ensure that they are current and validated; that required activities can be performed using these ‘generic’ IDs and passwords but are amended after the test so they are fresh and those using them – the users – can’t use them during normal business hours.

5. No Testing/Validation: If validation activities are not performed, then how can anyone know exactly what to do? Testing is a form of training and training will help people identify their roles and build BCM plans and processes. When testing, start off small and then build upon successes – and upon problems – so that the program becomes stronger and stronger. If no one participates in test then no one has the opportunity to practice their roles and areas of responsibility; they then need someone to remind them or provide guidance to them as to what to do. Also, if you only test once or rarely, people will forget what they need to do and where their materials are located.

6. Assumptions: A key reason many stand around not knowing what to do, or forgetting what they need to do, is related back to the assumptions made during the initial stages of building and implementing plans and processes. All too often non-technology departments (i.e. “the business”) will make assumptions about technology departments (i.e. “IT”) but without ever validating that the assumptions are correct; sometimes never even letting the other know that an assumption has even been made. From personal experience, there have been too many instances where one side of the other states that ‘IT/business knows x or y…’ or that ‘IT/business will do…’ and it almost never proves to be true. Both teams end up confused not knowing what to do because they are waiting on the other for information or they are assuming that something is occurring while they’re just waiting for some confirmation that an activity is done. In reality, everyone is standing around not knowing what to do or who to even talk to. If you’re using assumption in your initial planning, through exercises and tests, the amount of assumptions being used should dwindle over time as they either become actual roles within a plan/process or become proven to be false and are removed from a plan/process.

7. No Awareness & Training: It’s a simple one really; no one knows what to do in a disaster because no one has told them about it. They haven’t been part of the overall program build or design (not that everyone needs to be part of every phase) and haven’t been told they are responsible for specific activities. Often, DR team members don’t even know they are part of that team until someone asks what they are going to do in a meeting full of other managers – some not sure why they are their in the first place. This also means that they haven’t bee involved with any testing activities to help validate plans, which is one of the best opportunities for training; executing activities under controlled circumstances to actually learn what needs to be completed and understand expectations.

8. Plans and Processes are Written in Isolation: Sometimes its not even a case of forgetting what needs to be done, as outlined in a BCP/DR plan – it’s never being told of what is in the plan and not being part of its build. All to often plans are build in isolation meaning someone not within the department is writing its contents based on what they know and what they hear at meeting yet if the actual user isn’t part of that development or the person responsible for actioning activities isn’t part of the plans development, they aren’t going to know what activities they are responsible for. Ensure that all plans are written with the person or persons responsible for the plan itself; the person who’ll actually be responsible to action the activities within the plan.

9. No Review of Plans (by Users): One of the best ways to ensure that a BCP/DR plans everything it needs and that the content is clear and understood, is to ensure that its reviewed by the actual user. When they review existing plans, as noted in #8 above, they can recommend enhancements, additions or even deletions based on real knowledge of what needs to be done. If a plan was written in isolation and not review was performed by an actual user, it’s no wonder people don’t know what actions to take or even where their plans is – if they even know there is a plan in the first place. If no review of the plan is performed then the users themselves don’t become familiar with content and what is expected of them. Instead of initiating proactive measures they wait for someone to tell them what is expected and in many cases, those individuals are assuming that ‘plan’ users know what needs to be done.

10. Focus on Blame: When an organization has a disaster, often you see the Public Relations (PR) representative or the President stand in front of a microphone being questioned by members of the media – or even the public sometimes – and they spend allot of time pointing the finger of blame or trying to deflect any criticism or questioning on what the organization is doing. When employees see this, they will spend their time trying to find the cause of the problem or the ‘right one to blame’ rather than concentrating on a proper response, restoration and recovery strategy. All hands are on deck to find out what is wrong and who should be help responsible but if leadership is busy with that approach then employees will be too, as they won’t be focusing on the right tasks at hand. It ends up being a crutch that organizations leverage so that they can start their restoration and recovery activities in the background, away from the face of the media. Usually, this means they didn’t have any strategy in place to begin with and the excuse that someone else is to blame is used as a smokescreen to cover the fact that behind the scenes, no one knows what to do within the organization.

11. Checklist Approach: If BCM is checkbox on someone’s report, the chances are it’s a checkbox on an executive report. They eventually see the checkbox ticked and then there is no more discussion or promotion of the BCM initiatives. This also means that the only reason the program was stated in the first place was to ensure someone’s checkbox was ticked and that it drops off of any report or audit ticket. Chances are good that the work and value of the work performed to plan, develop and execute plans was minimal at best and won’t be of much use during a real situation. Thus, no one will pay close attention to the BCM program and the related plans because it’s treated as a one-time thing – forgotten when the checkbox is identified as complete.

12. Seeking Direction: Like many people, when something occurs everyone looks around for direction; who will take control of the situation and tell us what to do? Staff will look to management while management is looking at executives; each expecting the other to provide direction on what they should – or shouldn’t – be doing. Think of when a fire alarm goes off in a facility – even a fire drill – most people keep working or start asking if it’s a real situation or not. Should be get up? Should we leave? Many wait to be told to leave before they bother responding to the alarms. If people can’t understand that they need to leave when the fire alarms go off its no wonder they don’t understand their role when a disaster strikes. Everyone is seeking direction from someone else.

Finally, panic is something that can run rampant during a disaster. When that happens, any thought of gaining control of the situation can go out the window and there’s no way anyone is going to pay attention to their role on a disaster team when that happens. This is why many of the items noted above need to be addressed prior to any situation occurring. When people are more aware of what to do and have been through it a few times – each more challenging than the last – they are better prepared to deal with the situation when it’s real – not faked under controlled circumstances, as it is usually done during a test. There will still be an element of panic – it’s almost a given – but putting measures in place to deal with it ahead of time can help reduce its impact and increase the chances considerably that no one will be standing around wondering what to do; they won’t forget.

© StoneRoad (Stone Road Inc) 2013

Books by A. Alex Fullick Available at the following:
http://www.stone-road.com, http://www.amazon.com & http://www.volumesdirect.com





Crisis Management: When Does a Crisis Start?

12 07 2013

Many of us don’t hear about a crisis until it hits the newswires, either through social media, news websites or through a posting on a social site we might follow. In some cases, we might not know about a crisis until we see 1st responders racing down the road heading towards and emergency.
Some will automatically see a disaster as a large catastrophe and one of the BCM/DR industry definitions of a disaster is that it’s a sudden, unplanned event that prevents the organization from performing normal operations. Though both a crisis and/or disaster can start well before the public or media even get wind of the problem.
Sometimes a disaster doesn’t begin until after a period of time when a lesser level of operational hindrance has been experienced. Then when the disaster itself occur, the management of the situation will determine the level of crisis; meaning how well the crisis is handled from the perspective of the public, media, stakeholders (vendors, partners etc) and employees.
For an operational impact, it could be that a key application is offline but is that a disaster? Probably not. If the offline application has a major impact upon people causing major distress and problems such as something in health care or the financial industry, then yes, that application being offline – even for a short time – is a disaster. How the immediate response and post-disaster activities are managed is what will create the crisis for the company. If you get something up and running within a very short time (and in today’s world that’s usually no more than an hour) then it might not be a disaster and a quick response and communication to the community will suffice. If it’s longer, then the management level and involvement of the situation and the level of impact it has becomes a disaster.
Still, if an organization has an internal Crisis Management process in place, early identification and response measures may prevent the incident from escalating and becoming a crisis – or a disaster if nothing is done about it – in the media or public eye. It was just an incident that didn’t have any major impact. Oddly enough, it could have been a major interruption but the impact on Service Level Agreements (SLA), employees, customers, vendors and partners was limited in size and scope; it was just a major incident for the company involved because of the resources (financial, time, personnel) it took to get resolved.
So, when does a crisis start?
It starts the moment the organization believes that someone – anyone – will begin to ask questions. It could be a client, employee (who will access social media about it if they haven’t been educated about not communicating corporate activities), vendor, partner or in some cases a financial institution or legislative body. An organization may be able to manage the situation internally with little impacts being had on external – and internal parties – but as soon as questions are asked about the disruption, you have the start of a crisis. It’s how well you manage those initial questions – along with the incident response itself (I.e. getting the critical application up and running as soon as possible) – that will determine how big the crisis escalates. If you don’t manage it properly the crisis will grow and escalate, making it a ‘Public Relations’ disaster.
The start of a crisis is different for every organization. It all depends on the level of preparation, preparedness and response is developed and instilled within the corporate operations. If an organization doesn’t have anything developed or the level of development is sub-par and very ‘flimsy’, the crisis starts quickly and escalates quickly – reaching that “PR” disaster timeframe in record time.

**NOW AVAILABLE**
Books by StoneRoad founder, A.Alex Fullick, MBCI, CBCP, CBRA, ITILv3.
Available at http://www.stone-road.com, http://www.amazon.com, http://www.volumesdirect.com





12 Tips, Trips & Traps: The Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

1 07 2013

Hello dear readers!! We’ve been a bit quiet lately over here at StoneRoad due to multiple vacations (Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and more) and now that we’re all back, it’s time to start posting once more. Enjoy…
The StoneRoad Team
**************************************

**The below section is an abbreviated bonus taken from the Appendix of the book, “Business Impact Analysis (BA): Building the Foundations for a Strong Business Continuity Program” by A.Alex Fullick. The full text can be found in the aforementioned book.**

Business Continuity Management (BCM), like most corporate programs, is often plagued by common mistakes; these common mistakes also apply to the Business Impact Analysis (BIA. The following are some common mistakes that need to be addressed to ensure that the BIA is effective:

1. Minimal Management Support – Senior management must buy in to the need for continued maintenance of the BCP program. The program requires on-going resources to ensure that the program is funded and there are dedicated resources assigned across the organization. The people who head up the BCP program must have the requisite training, as well as the skills to provide leadership, prioritize tasks, communicate with stakeholders, and manage the program.

2. No Timely Follow Up of Results – A BIA is conducted almost always in support of an enterprise-wide business continuity program. The real value of a BIA is the follow-up activities that lead to effective recovery strategies being implemented based on the BIA priorities of the business processes. Occasionally, so much effort and cost is put into the BIA that business continuity planners never get around to fully implementing the follow-up recovery strategies and plans. Without the implementation of these follow-ups, the value of the BIA becomes wasted.

3. No Agreement on Scope (Level of Detail) – This level of detail can span an entire spectrum. On one end, some BIAs will contain relatively little detail to provide a higher-level executive view of the analysis. On the other end, and far more prevalent, are BIAs that include for each business process its corresponding input dependencies, output dependencies, recovery point objectives, recovery time objectives, and financial impacts. The common mistake here does not involve selecting the right or wrong level of detail – what’s appropriate for one company may be totally inappropriate for another – but rather, failing to reach agreement among all relevant parties as to what level of detail best meets the requirements that are driving the BIA in the first place.

4. Minimal Executive Support – One of the factors that most influences the relative success of a BIA is the degree of executive support offered at the outset. The kickoff process usually consists of two parts: a widely distributed email and an initial presentation. The email should come from the highest level executive sponsoring the BIA and should be distributed to all parties who will be participating in the effort. The email should emphatically voice the executive’s support for the project and insist on the support of al participants, particularly during the interview process.

5. Poor Questionnaires – An important step of any BIA is the collection of data from business units. The manner in which this data is asked for often spells the difference between a full, timely and meaningful collection of data, and one that is delayed and incomplete. One of the best ways to avoid this situation is to develop survey forms that are thorough enough to capture all relevant information and simple enough for business users to complete quickly and easily.

6. Lack of Preparation for Interviews/Workshops – Interviews are the cornerstone of a successful BIA, yet few planners prepare adequately for them to ensure their effectiveness. Interviewers need to learn as much as they can about a given business unit prior to the meeting, including a thorough review of the respondent’s survey.

7. Lack of Critical Focus – Analysts frequently make the mistake of asking business users ‘what are the most important business processes within their department?’ The reason this is a mistake is because virtually all critical business processes have a large degree of importance and value – otherwise they would not be designated as critical – resulting in less likelihood of it being easy to prioritize processes according to value or importance. A much better question to ask is ‘how long can a business process be idle before major impact is felt?

8. Focusing on the Tools Instead of the Process – Some analysts who conduct BIAs become very focused on the tools they will be using in the collection, compiling and analyzing the data provided by the business users. The emphasis often shifts inappropriately from the process being used, to the automation that can be applied to the process. There is an inherent flaw in this approach. If a poorly designed manual process that is being used to collect and analyze the data suddenly becomes automated, what you typically end up with is a poorly designed automated process.

9. Ineffective Interviewing Technique – I have known more than a few BIA analysts who preferred to rely solely on surveys, questionnaires and emails to collect needed data. The example previously cited concerning the over-focus on tools shows how this can less than desirable results. Analysts often say that setting up interviews can be more hassle than it’s worth. They will mention how interviews often start late, or may be cut short, or have to be re-scheduled, or cancelled altogether. In my experience, the real reason some BIA analysts try to steer clear of face-to-face meetings is that they tend to use ineffective techniques when interviewing business process owners.

10. Insufficient Results Analysis – Analysts conducting a BIA collect a wealth of information during the course of their efforts. But the value of this information is sometimes diminished by poor or incomplete analysis of the data. Analysts need to look for trends, patterns, relationships and discrepancies among and within the data to ensure a thorough and meaningful analysis.

11. Unclear Presentations – Data that is thoroughly collected and well analyzed is sometimes de-valued by an unclear or confusing presentation of the information and results. Managers in general and sponsoring executives in particular, expect BIA analysts to summarize their results in high-level presentations that are succinct and effective. Unfortunately, this does not always happen. Analysts gather a huge amount of data in the process of conducting BIA. In compiling and analyzing this data, analyst sometime err on the side of presenting too much information rather than too little.

12. Undefined Scope – Often, the BCP focuses entirely on system restoration. Resumption of business needs to include the people and processes required to resume operations. Many BCP programs are headed up by IT departments. ‘Tunnel vision’ can often cause these departments to focus on system recovery and not take the people issues into account. During an event, the people issues are often the most difficult to resolve. The scope of a business impact analysis (BIA) pertains to the number of business units, such as Finance, Administration and IT, which will be participating in the effort.

Don’t let your BIA efforts fall to the wayside; make sure you have strong BIA approach and you’ll end up with a strong BCM / DR program.





6 Questions: Why an Organization Should Exercise BCM/DR Plans

24 05 2013

It’s great to have many continuity plans and strategies to prepare for and respond to, disasters. However, if they aren’t validated they don’t carry any weight and there’s no way of knowing if they would be any good – useful – when a real situation occurs.

BCM practitioners may make the case for exercising plans but sometimes management may not want to provide the resources – physical & financial – available to validate the plans. There are a few questions that can be posed to executive management to possibly allow for the right kind of commitment and support to validate continuity strategies and plans.

1. Will an exercise increase overall BCM awareness within the organization? Well, let’s face it, if you’re exercising BCM plans, of course you’ll be increasing BCM awareness. Depending upon what you’re exercising and how you manage / facilitate the exercise, awareness will be increased but make it a positive experience or else BCM will end up being something negative in participants eyes.

2. Will the exercise identify potential ‘gaps’ in documented BCM plans and procedures? Let’s hope so. Not only do you want to validate what you have documented and discussed with numerous representatives but you also want to find things that may be wrong in the plans – not just what’s right.

3. Is there potential for the exercise to provide ‘learning opportunities’ for participants and the organization in general? If managed correctly and viewed as a positive experience, then employees will learn from the exercises – and from each other. In some cases, they may even be working with people they wouldn’t normally encounter in their daily operations.

4. Will the exercise provide an opportunity to leverage the results for further corporate gain and benefit? They should. If you can show that you’re exercising you plans – and have documented proof of them (Exercise Charters, Executive Summaries, Issue Logs etc) then you can use this information to help respond to RFPs etc and develop a stronger case for a potential client to choose your organization over a competitor. Having a strong BCM program can be used for competitive advantage.

5. Can the exercise provide skills and knowledge transfer between participants? Depending on what is in scope for the exercise, participants may need to seek assistance from other people in the organization for guidance. For instance, if a Single Point of Knowledge (SPOK) isn’t available to rebuild the payroll server because they are busy with other initiatives, they may be able to pass along their knowledge – as best they can – to another resource who will do it for the exercise, this way people are talking to each other and learning from each other. This is a simple example but you get the idea.

6. Can the exercise increase the responsiveness and effectiveness of the organization should a real disaster (or other event) occur? Simply put, the more practice people get the better they become, whether that be BCM or in any other area. Whether you have a large scale situation or a smaller scale incident, you’ll be better prepared if your people – and the processes and plans – are better prepared and knowledgeable. Enough said.

If any answer is ‘yes’ to the above questions, you’re well on your way to securing the support for validating continuity strategies and plans. Exercising only makes a person – or in this case, a program – stronger more robust.
© StoneRoad 2013

**NOW AVAILABLE**
Books by StoneRoad founder, A.Alex Fullick, MBCI, CBCP, CBRA, ITILv3,
Available at http://www.amazon.com, http://www.volumesdirect.com and
http://www.stone-road.com.





BCM / DR Program Templates Available from StoneRoad

12 05 2013

Check out our revamped shop at http://www.stone-road.com. We’ve added lots of new document templates to help get your new BCM / DR program off the ground – with more on the way. Each comes with built-in instructions so you don’t need to try and figure it all out on your own. You can even manipulate the templates if you want to so they address your specific need. Our goal is to show you ‘how’ to do things not just tell you ‘what’ you need to do.

Here’s a sample list of what we’ve got so far:
1 – Test-Exercise Project Change Request Template – $9.99
2 – Test-Exercise Scope Statement (Charter) – $29.99
3 – Test-Exercise Executive Summary – $29.99
4 – Operating Unit Business Continuity Plan (BCP) – $79.99
5 – Business Impact Analysis (BIA) (This one along can cost thousands for a software application.) – $79.99

Coming soon:
1 – Employee Logistics Plan – $tbd
2 – BCM/DR Program Policy Template – $tbd
3 – BCM / DR Program Overview (As a bonus, this will include the Policy template) – $tbd

If there’s something specific you’re looking for, send us an email. We’ve got lots in our arsenal and alwasy building new templates so we may just have what you need and just haven’t gotten around to getting it up on the site. We can always build something for you. You can reach us at inquiries@stone-road.com.

StoneRoad: Reducing Corporate Suffering Through Continuity Planning.

Regards,
The StoneRoad Team
StoneRoad 2013 (C)





7 Things That Can Ruin a BCM Program

11 05 2013

When financial hardships strike an organization, the Business Continuity program usually takes a hit. In fact, often it will take a hit when times are good so that the corporation can focus on other initiatives; initiatives designed to build upon the good times and keep the company making money. Increase that revenue, YEAH!! When this occurs, resources get reassigned to other projects and the BCM program gets placed on the back burner or it will see resources funnelled away to support other initiatives.
What kind of things do organizations cut from their budgets that can undermine and slowly dismantle a BCM program? Here’s just a short list of some of the actions corporations will take in diverting BCM intended resources.

1. Training – Training is suspended because sending employees on courses to upgrade and keep skills current is deemed as being too costly, especially if travel and accommodation is required. This training also helps to bring new ideas to the organization on how to better their programs but at the same time many executives (or those that approve BCM training) will simply state that the corporation knows what it would do. Thus, additional training isn’t required. Or worse, they send BCM people on courses that have nothing to do with their role.

2. Tests / Exercises – Some BCM tests get cancelled because they take resources away from other initiatives that are deemed a higher priority. Not exercising – and validating – plans and policies can cause issues with recovery procedures when a real disaster occurs because they haven’t been validated and team members have not practiced what they need to do. Also, some believe that if you’ve exercised once before, that’s all you need to do. You did it so you don’t need to do it again. Wrong! The more practice and progressively challenging you make the exercises the more robust the plans and policies become – and the better you’ll be able to respond and recover when disaster strikes.

3. Business Impact Analysis (BIA) – An organization will choose to skip updating the BIA and utilize previous findings assuming that nothing has changed, which is rarely the case. If nothing changed – ever – then there would be no such thing as projects. Projects drive change; from technology to processes. When projects are implemented it will change existing processes, introduce new ones or cancel some others. All this must be captured in the BIA and then carried over to the appropriate plans (i.e. contingency plans, crisis mgmt, technology recovery etc). Remember, ‘change is constant’ and the BIA should be able to capture those changes and then funnel them through to the right areas of the program so it reflects the organization as it is now – not as it once was.

4. BCM Awareness Program – Awareness weeks or sessions, assuming your organization has them, are cancelled to concentrate on other initiatives or because management don’t want to put a ‘scare’ into employees. Most employees I’ve ever worked with have said they would like to know what is expected of them in a disaster; keeping it from them is not a good idea. You’re really harming yourself and the business in the end. Some of the best ideas will come from involving people and keeping them up to date on progress. To put this in perspective, I was told by a Senior Director of a client that they would be making a poster of a specific announcement and hang it up around the office. “Everyone will see it and know of it and we’ll make sure it’s updated as needed”” they said. I guess they didn’t notice that just outside this director’s office were 3 posters; 1 was no longer relevant for the last year and the 2nd poster had a due date on it that was just over 2 years. Hmm, I wonder if those were supposed to be updated too.

5. Maintenance Initiatives – Business Continuity Plans (BCP) or other BCM components don’t get updated, which means that the best any BCM program can do – when not having been maintained – is take the organization back to the state of services and systems at the last time of updating. This is very specific when it comes to Technology Recovery Plans, which if not updated will only bring back systems that could reflect the structure of the company three year prior – assuming maintenance hasn’t been performed for three years. It could end up costing a corporation more money to purchase software and hardware to help bring the recovered systems to more updated levels. This can also increase the time it takes to recovery causing additional delays in getting operations running again. Also, there nothing worse that trying to find someone through call trees or notification applications (or whatever method is used) only to find that they changed numbers and now you can’t find one of the key people you need to help get restoration and recovery efforts started.

6. BCM Support / Investment – Investment in BCM is reduced or halted. This would include future initiatives such as building a new data centre, upgrading the backup tape systems, renewing key components of a Disaster Recovery (DR) vendor contract, or ensuring that a hot-site DR site (which can be internal) is linked to the main data centre to ensure that constant communication is kept between the two sites. Sometimes these initiatives are cut in favour of sticking with what is known for now (i.e. restore from tape), which can be detrimental if it takes 24 hours to restore from tape but certain systems and services need to be available and fully functional by the 8 hour mark. Just like an old car, the older it gets the harder it is to find anyone who has the skills and knowledge to fix the issues and the parts become scarcer and scarcer and the level of reliability on the car slowly begins to slide down the scale.

7. Organizational / IT Change Management: Nothing last forever or rather nothing stays the same forever; change in constant and the organization is constantly changing. If organizational change management (OCM) and IT change management aren’t incorporated or monitored by the BCM/DR team, plans will quickly become obsolete. They’ll only represent the organization as it was before the last change, assuming that while various BCM/DR program components were made, no changes ever occurred (and we know that isn’t true). So keep an eye out for change at all levels because if you don’t, you’re program will quickly fall out of step with the rest of the organization.

When any of these occur, the corporation begins to put itself in danger because what may have been a strong BCM program is now being scaled back and no longer receiving the focus it should have. When the corporation is growing and expanding during the good times, so too should the BCM program, otherwise if the corporation is hit with a disaster situation, it will have a program that only reflects the corporation before it expanded and implemented new initiatives. The corporations BCM program is only as good as the resources and the focus it receives from the top tier levels of the organization and the amount of respect it gets.
StoneRoad 2013 ®

**NOW AVAILABLE**
Purchase books by StoneRoad founder, A.Alex Fullick, MBCI, CBCP, CBRA, ITILv3, at the following locations:
http://www.amazon.com, http://www.stone-road.com/shop & http://www.volumesdirect.com.





9 Things to Consider with BCM / DR and the Use of Manual Processes

22 04 2013

When teams are determining and developing their Business (unit) Continuity Plan (BCP) the fact that manual procedures will be used, often crops up. ‘What will you do in a DR situation?’ they’re asked and the answer all too often – and quickly – comes back as “we’ll do ‘x’ manually.” Really, is it that easy to do; just revert to a manual process for what normally includes many checks and balances and possibly varying numbers of applications?

In some instances it might be that easy. If you telecommunications are still up you can answer calls and take down information clients are looking for and then call them back when applications come back up. Not a full manual process but you can at least get some client service going. For those old enough to remember, your credit cards were taken manually by restaurants and shops by copying the card imprint using carbon paper. That wasn’t a manual process back then – it was the process. However, if anyone in the restaurant or shop industry wants to ensure they can continue to service clients – and get paid by patrons – they still have an old dusty machine and credit card slips hidden in the back cupboard of the office. In this case, many places use this as the backup process – and it’s a manual process.

But it’s not always that easy to just say you’ll do your processes manually anymore. With huge strides in technology and technology dependencies (and interdependencies) and service level agreements, not to mention the level of governance required in today’s business world, switching to a manual process may not be that easy and in many cases may not even be possible. For that reason organizations must really think through what they can and cannot do manually and take into consideration some key factors.
Below are 9 things an organization must consider before reverting to manual processes during disaster situations and before it’s inserted into any business unit BCP.

1. Short Term Use: If you’re going to use manual processes, remember they are only intended for short term use. They are not meant to be used for any long term use, as it could cause you other problems down the road. They are short term fixes used

2. They May Break Regulations: Sometimes a manual process breaks a rule – or sidesteps a rule – so that a function can be completed. In a disaster situation when (if) you’re using manual processes, be aware that the process may not meet your usual standards simply because technology has been taken out of the loop.

3. Less Audit and Governance: If you are developing manual processes and see a need to have them, know that the level of governance and audit tracing by various technology applications won’t exist if a manual process is leveraged. Still, consider adding some level of audit or governance to lessen an potential future impacts.

4. Serious Emergencies Only: Consider the use of manual processes only in real emergencies. If an application – or some other situation – is very short term, it may not be necessary to bring everyone up to speed on what to do when using the manual process. It may simply be easier to wait until the application (or other dependency) becomes available once more.

5. Not Widely Available (or known): It may seem a bit strange to withhold information but manual processes aren’t something you want everyone to know about. If everyone did know about them, they might be used in non-emergencies, which would completely cause chaos down the road when an issue pops up with the work completed. If you have them, keep them separate from regular operating procedures and don’t distribute widely to people until necessary.

6. Not a Process Replacement: Since manual procedures are intended as a short term fix, they are not a replacement for regular operational activities. They are only mean to be used to continue a critical operation – or as a short term partial fix – until normal operational activities can continue (i.e. applications become available etc). A manual process does not equate to an alternate method of doing the same thing; it’s short term because the normal operational activity can’t continue as is due to an unforeseen circumstance and will be stopped as soon as it’s feasible.

7. Determine Use Requirements: When Can They Be Used? Under what circumstances can – or will – the manual process be utilized? It could be that as part of normal operating procedures, a manual override is required by a management representative because our own authority doesn’t allow for us to continue with a function. We’ve all be in the situation where we are waiting for something to complete but we need to the ‘special authority (or input)’ of a manager before we can continue. You also want to ensure that the manual process can’t compromise your operations and utilized for underhanded purposes, so know when it is appropriate and when the manual process fits into operations – either as a disaster contingency or as part of governance processes.

8. Oversight Requirements: Need some level of oversight on manual processes – even in DR situations, as audit / governance / legislative requirements may still need to be captured (depending on the process and procedure being manually used (i.e. old credit card slips). Keep in mind that developing oversight processes during a disaster period may delay the actual recovery timeframes and can cause unnecessary work but it all depends on what manual process(es) you’ve decided to develop and implement for DR purposes.

9. Documentation – DR Use: Keep these documented and ready for use in a DR situation (part of a BCP plan for use by the appropriate departments (an appendix)) and kept in a separate location from other operating manuals. Quite possibly, they can be kept in a locker or other container at the DR restoration and recovery centre. Make sure you keep things updated too and reviewed every so often. Even if you do have manual procedures in place, they are based on regular operating procedures, so when those change the manual procedures may need to be reviewed as well.

If you’re in a position to use manual processes to get your operational activities completed, that great however, in a DR situation you aren’t operating in normal circumstances and manual processes may not be the norm even when there isn’t a disaster. Think carefully of what you can – and cannot do – with manual processes before you document and incorporate such worded activities into BCP plans. Incorporating them before you’ve considered the ramifications might cause another disaster situation further down the road…sometimes before you’ve even recovered from your first disaster.
© StoneRoad, 2013

**NOW AVAILABLE**
Books by StoneRoad founder, A.Alex Fullick, MBCI, CBCP, CBRA, ITILv3
Available at http://www.stone-road.com, http://www.amazon.com & http://www.volumesdirect.com








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.