Preparing for the Unexpected (2020-06025): COVID-19 – 2nd Wave, Vaccines, Therapeutics and the Future

Join me this Thursday, June 25/20, as I continue our monthly chat with Regina Phelps about Covid-19.  Covid-19 is going to be with us for some time yet, especially with the numbers we’re seeing around the globe. We’ll talk about what’s happening around the globe right now and what we can expect in the future. Regina will also talk to us about the latest news with regards to vaccines and therapeutics. It’s another informative episode you won’t want to miss.

Enjoy!

The StoneRoad Team

{PREPARING FOR THE UNEXPECTED: COVID-19 – Pandemic ‘Waves’ and Your Work Re-Entry Plan

Join me this Thursday (May 28/20) for our monthly talk with Regina Phelps on Covid-19 and continue our chat from Apr 23 on what organization’s need to consider if they want to re-enter their workplaces. You might find some of it quite surprising…  Enjoy!

The StoneRoad Team

 

COVID-19: Pandemic Planning Phases and Your Re-Entry Plan

Join me April 23/20, as I once again chat with industry expert Regina Phelps about the Phases of Pandemic Planning and what organizations need to do to create their re-entry plan.  It’s Part 1 of a 2 part discussion and a very informative episode not to be missed by any organization affected by Covid-19  

Enjoy!

The StoneRoad Team

#reginaphelps #covid19 #businesscontinuity #pandemicplanning #preparingfortheunexpected #alexfullick

Preparing for the Unexpected (Apr 2/20): RESILIENCE with Best-Selling Authors Jennifer Eggers and Cynthia Barlow

When a disaster or crisis strikes, the wish of many organizations is to bounce back from the situation. However, Resilience is not about bouncing back, it’s so much more. We talk with best selling authors Jennifer Eggers & Cynthia Barlow and their international best selling book “Resilience – It’s Not About Bouncing Back”. Cynthia and Jennifer will talk to us about where our resilience comes from and how we can make ourselves and organizations, resilient. Jennifer and Cynthia will also give us insight on where resilience comes from; it’s not what you might think. A truly enlightening episode on Resiliency not to be missed.

https://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/122108/resilience-its-not-about-bouncing-back

Enjoy!

The StoneRoad Team

 

Preparing for the Unexpected (Apr 30/20): The Business Analyst – How They Help BCM and DR

No Business Continuity Management (BCM) professional can know everything about business operations, as there’s just so much to know. However, a BCM professional can learn allot about an organizations operations by speaking with a Business Analyst (BA), whether they be Business or Technical in focus. We speak with experienced BA expert Bill Baxter who will speak to us about the roll of the BA and what we can learn from them to help us understand business – and technical – operations. When building our continuity plans we need the input of skilled and knowledgeable resources to make our plans strong, viable and usable, and the Business Analyst is one of the key roles to help get the right plans in place.

https://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/121363/encore-the-business-analyst-and-how-they-help-bcm-and-dr

Enjoy!

The StoneRoad Team

BCM / DR Programs: Why Do We Think A Program Will Maintain Itself?

Hello,

Happy New Year to one and all!  2020 is shaping up to be quite the year for me and I hope it is for you too.

I first have to apologize for not having been more diligent in writing and promoting my show on the VoiceAmerica Radio Network (‘Preparing for the Unexpected’), as I’ve just been so busy.  But I decided I should get back to writing and posting here, even if it’s something short. So without further adieu, my first blog of 2020.

Alex

*****************

Lately, I’ve noticed that some of the talk about BCM / DR programs and their maintenance don’t seem to align. There is so much talk about ensuring programs are developed and that plans are in place and then validated through exercising/testing but then that only gets followed up with the comment; ‘These should be maintained’.  And that’s it.  I’ve noticed it in articles, blogs and when speaking to people.  It’s as though there is something wrong with talking about how to maintain a program or there’s a lack of experience with developing the maintenance processes.

I’m not sure why the talk on this subject something trails off into other topics or why it tends to often be quickly references and then the topic moves in another direction. Are we not familiar with how this is supposed to be accomplished? Let’s face it, there is so much discussion about building programs and exercising plans and processes that maintaining it after the fact seems to fade away.

There might a couple of reasons for why the topic tends to fade away and only come back into the conversation after a disaster/crisis/operational interruption occurs.

  1. Quite often, contractors and consultants are hired to build programs – especially the RA, BIA, BCP development, tests etc., and when those are complete, they leave because the engagement is completed.
  2. When the high-priced consultants and contractors are gone, Executives begin to loose interest because the regular requests for support and status updates slow down or stop all together.
  3. When the contractors/consultants leave, the program is handed off to someone who doesn’t have the full breadth and knowledge of the program and are only assigned to it for 50% of their time.  So it doesn’t get the focus it needs. So they don’t end up providing the updates required for Executives (#2 above) , which causes Exec’s to loose interest and it drops off their radar.

There’s lots of focus on the creation and validation of BCM/DR/Resilience programs but I think some more attention, research and methods to keep programs updated and maintained, needs to be done.

 

© StoneRoad 2020

A.Alex Fullick has over 21 years’ experience working in Business Continuity and is the author of numerous books, including “Watch Your Step”, “BIA: Building the Foundation for a Strong Business Continuity Program” and Testing Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Plans

 

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

Perparing for the Unexpected (2019-10-31): Mastering BCM w/ Dr. Michael Redmond

Join us on October 31/19, as we talk with author and internationally recognized Business Continuity Management expert Dr. Michael C Redmond.  It’s sure to be an eye-opener and we also talk about her thoughts on the Adaptive BCP movement.

https://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/117011/mastering-business-continuity-management

Enjoy!

The StoneRoad Team

Preparing for the Unexpected (Oct 24/19): The Role of Social Media in Organizational Resilience

Join us Oct 24/19 as we welcome back Lt Glen Mills to talk about The Role of Social Media in Organizational Resilience.

https://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/116510/the-role-of-social-media-in-organizational-resilience

Enjoy!

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.