Join me Thursday, July 30/20, as I talk with Vendor Management expert, Vicky McKim.
We’ll discuss the key Vendor Management procedures, Risk Management and Risk Controls, and Supply Chain Management.
Enjoy!
The StoneRoad Team
Category Archives: Expectations
COVID-19: Does Everyone Believe ‘We’re In It Together’?
If you watch any television – streaming or traditional methods – we see the axiom “We’re all in it Together” non-stop; during every show and at the end of every commercial – or even as a stand-alone commercial. But as we watch these shows and get our updates through various news networks and sources, it seems clear we aren’t all in it together even if we’re told we are. Continue reading
COVID-19: We’re on the Cusp of BIG Changes!
Well, if you haven’t seen or heard anything related to the Covid-19 disease, you’ve either been living in a cave or on the moon. It’s everywhere. It’s touching every aspect of our lives. It’s changing every aspect of our life and it’s going to change the world going forward. I know that might sound a bit ominous but 1 event can change the world. Continue reading
Business Continuity Management: Is the Industry Due for a Change?
There’s an old saying that says “change it the only constant” and that’s true for almost everything in the world. Our communities change, the kind of car we drive changes, our homes change, our families change, the technology we use changes, our music tastes change (though we do prefer some kind of music over others), so why is it there is so much push back when there is a recommendation – or even just the spark of an idea – to change our Business Continuity/Resiliency Management industry?
In recent years there has been the question about changing the way specific components of a BCM program are managed, in fact, there’s even the suggestion to stop performing the way specific components of a BCM program altogether. In some circles, this seems to have sparked a firestorm of controversy with some jumping for joy that the scent of a change is in the air, while other BCM professionals and practitioners vehemently promote the same-old same-old way of doing things. Of course, I’m talking about the Adaptive BCP movement that calls for the removal of the Risks Assessment/Analysis (RA) and Business Impact Analysis (BIA) from the overall BCM core competencies. I’m not going to go into Mark and David’s overall mandate, as that’s for them to discuss in detail, but I do think they raise a great point; the point that it’s time for a change.
Many of us have worked for organizations and clients that have various methods of building, implementing and validating Business Continuity and Technology Recovery Plans, so it’s only natural for those changes – and the reasons for them – to be promoted. When our day-to-day processes don’t align with the supposed frameworks communicated by various BCM and DR governing bodies, then the reality is that there is a need to consider change. From a personal perspective, I’ve been to many client sites that want a specific delivery within a specific timeframe – that’s reality – so I have to adapt what the client wants with the way I know how things should be done. It’s just a fact, that we have to adapt ourselves and our BCM/DR processes to changing expectations of clients, communities and organizations. Sometimes, that means not performing a specific program component in the same way a governing body would expect. Sometimes, an organization, community or individual already know the risk or the potential impacts and has asked us – the BCM/DR professional or practitioner – to take the next step of developing contingencies.
That’s the reality, folks! It DOES happen and programs and program deliverables are still created to the satisfaction and expectations of company executives. So why continue to deny that it doesn’t occur or that by removing a step – or changing the say a BCM program component is done – does not or should not occur? Change is inevitable. If the Project Management Institute (PMI) can develop the Agile Project Management methodology, then why can’t our current governing bodies accept new ways of performing BCM program components.
Change can be difficult and make us feel as though we aren’t doing what we should, but as long as we get to the expected end-of-the-road deliverable, should it really matter what path we take to get there? Especially if we understand the risks of doing things differently and we document and/or communicate that risk then we as practitioners and professionals should walk the path best suited to the situation and expectation at hand.
I think the shake-up and change in attitudes and ideas is good for our industry. It might make some feel uncomfortable but that’s good – it means we are hitting the right notes because it’s getting attention. If we stay stagnant then we’ll eventually lose our edge and value, as we’ll be seen as inflexible dinosaurs – and you know what happened to them.
The StoneRoad Team
BCM / DR / BCP Programs: Is Our Industry Due for a Change?
There’s an old saying that says “change it the only constant” and that’s true for almost everything in the world. Our communities change, the kind of car we drive changes, our homes change, our families change, the technology we use changes, our music tastes change (though we do prefer some kind of music over others), so why is it there is so much push back when there is a recommendation – or even just the spark of an idea – to change our Business Continuity/Resiliency Management industry?
In recent years there has been the question about changing the way specific components of a BCM program are managed, in fact, there’s even the suggestion to stop performing the way specific components of a BCM program altogether. In some circles, this seems to have sparked a firestorm of controversy with some jumping for joy that the scent of a change is in the air, while other BCM professionals and practitioners vehemently promote the same-old same-old way of doing things. Of course, I’m talking about the Adaptive BCP movement that calls for the removal of the Risks Assessment/Analysis (RA) and Business Impact Analysis (BIA) from the overall BCM core competencies. I’m not going to go into Mark and David’s overall mandate, as that’s for them to discuss in detail, but I do think they raise a great point; the point that it’s time for a change.
Many of us have worked for organizations and clients that have various methods of building, implementing and validating Business Continuity and Technology Recovery Plans, so it’s only natural for those changes – and the reasons for them – to be promoted. When our day-to-day processes don’t align with the supposed frameworks communicated by various BCM and DR governing bodies, then the reality is that there is a need to consider change. From a personal perspective, I’ve been to many client sites that want a specific delivery within a specific timeframe – that’s reality – so I have to adapt what the client wants with the way I know how things should be done. It’s just a fact, that we have to adapt ourselves and our BCM/DR processes to changing expectations of clients, communities and organizations. Sometimes, that means not performing a specific program component in the same way a governing body would expect. Sometimes, an organization, community or individual already know the risk or the potential impacts and has asked us – the BCM/DR professional or practitioner – to take the next step of developing contingencies.
That’s the reality, folks! It DOES happen and programs and program deliverables are still created to the satisfaction and expectations of company executives. So why continue to deny that it doesn’t occur or that by removing a step – or changing the say a BCM program component is done – does not or should not occur? Change is inevitable. If the Project Management Institute (PMI) can develop the Agile Project Management methodology, then why can’t our current governing bodies accept new ways of performing BCM program components.
Change can be difficult and make us feel as though we aren’t doing what we should, but as long as we get to the expected end-of-the-road deliverable, should it really matter what path we take to get there? Especially if we understand the risks of doing things differently and we document and/or communicate that risk then we as practitioners and professionals should walk the path best suited to the situation and expectation at hand.
I think the shake-up and change in attitudes and ideas is good for our industry. It might make some feel uncomfortable but that’s good – it means we are hitting the right notes because it’s getting attention. If we stay stagnant then we’ll eventually lose our edge and value, as we’ll be seen as inflexible dinosaurs – and you know what happened to them. Change in inevitable because it’s already happening.
Preparing for the Unexpected (2019-09-26) – Crisis Management w/ Regina Phelps
Join us on 2019-09-26 as we air an encore presentation of one of our most popular shows “Crisis Management: How to Develop a Powerful Program” with Regina Phelps.
Enjoy!
The StoneRoad Team
Preparing for the Unexpected (2019-08-16): Health & Wellness and Organizational Resiliency
Join us August 15/19, as we talk to Health and Wellness Expert Dr. Robert Quigley who will talk to us about how H&W can enhance and organizations resiliency.
Enjoy!
The StoneRoad Team
Preparing for the Unexpected (2019-09-05): The Soulful Leader
Join us 2019-09-05 as we talk to author and clinical psychologist Dr. Arthur Ciaramicoli about how our Crisis Leaders can become Soulful Leaders.
https://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/115529/the-soulful-leader
Enjoy!
The StoneRoad Team
Preparing for the Unexpected (Aug 8/19): Preventing and Managing Violence in Organizations
Join us August 8/19, as we talk to Workplace Violence expert and author, Dr. Marc Siegel about how we can prepare and prevent workplace violence.
https://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/113739/preventing-and-managing-violence-in-organizations
Enjoy!
Crisis Communications: When You’re Making Things Worse!
I remember the days when we used to teach people how to communicate during crisis or stressful situations and provide lists of what to do and what not to do in front of the media. There was media training provided and organizations had media spokespeople. The advent and expansion of social media means that this seems to have fallen by the wayside…or at least that’s the perception created by some individuals that obviously never received any kind of crisis training – communications and then some. Continue reading
Stoneroad's Blog 