We live in uncertain times – few of us will argue with that ! We also might expect that this would make management accept the need for improved BC Planning. However management are more likely to be focusing on declining revenues and profitability resulting for this uncertainty and its effects on the global economy.

This management focus means that some awkward questions are being asked about allocation of resources to BCM and the approaches which are taken to planning. These questions typically include :

- Why am I paying a large amount of money for what is perceived as ‘empty’ office space and unused duplicate computer hardware. Can’t we pay for such recovery space and facilities when we need it rather than as an insurance policy

-We have spent a lot developing our BC plan. With no new systems development or new products - why am I paying specialist BC staff to maintain plans and carry out 1 annual test, when this means I have to cut resources in other areas.

- New risks such as chemical, biological and major terrorist attack are growing and the authorities’ responses to these mean that current BC arrangements are not appropriate – Can we reduce costs and improve plans by moving our BC facilities to out-of-town locations where property is cheaper – either internally or externally ?

- We have reduced or removed contract resources in most other areas – how can I justify using contractors and consultants to carry out BC planning and tests. Can’t internal non-specialist resources do this work ?

- Our BC project involves a lot of user’s time inputting to or new or repeat Business Impact and Risk Identification analyses. Is this the best use of scarce business resources which are being cut to the bone

- We have cut headcount and systems hardware in our day to day business – Why can we not reduce our BC spend in line with these reductions.

- Our BC planning seems to duplicate resources and processes elsewhere in the business – Why can’t this activity be carried out by business and support resources rather than spending money on specialist BC resources ?


Failure to appreciate these management motivations and respond to their questions pro-actively will increasingly leave BC practitioners and suppliers looking out of touch and too expensive ! Our response must be to contribute to the cutting of costs by re-focusing on two areas – Integration and Innovation.

Integration

BC practitioners should move from carrying out the BC activities in the typical BC planning lifecycle to focusing on handing over these tasks to business and support functions and integrating the work to the normal activities of those functions. For example, maintenance of crisis communications procedures should be handed to Human Resources, rather than the BC Manager maintaining separate list of key contact numbers; IT should build-in recoverability of systems, networks etc to their normal activities rather than this being designed and maintained by the BC Manager; Crisis media management plans should be developed and managed by normal Public Relations function or agency; Business function manager should be made responsible for identifying their critical functions and systems and producing recovery plans; Maintenance of BC Plans should be integrated to with normal change management process ;and so on.

The role of the BC Manager should be to

a ) develop the integrated planning framework

b) define a method for management to assure themselves that responsibilities are being fulfilled and plans are being realistically tested – maybe using specialist auditors or consultants on an ‘as needed’ basis; and

c) carrying out training. When this project is completed the ongoing aspects of BC Management will reduce to only 10% of the previous resources. Ultimately this means that the BC resources will be reduced or removed and staff should move into mainline business functions.

Innovation

Once developed BC strategies tend to be inflexible - as change costs!

Suppliers rely on this fact to maintain their revenue stream by renewing existing contracts as this is the customer’s path of least effort/resistance. With pressure on their own and customer costs, suppliers are also moving towards increasing subscription ratios to increase revenues from existing facilities. This increases risk and reduces the perceived benefits from BC contracts.

Little real innovation has taken place in the last 4-5 years in the BC suppliers market. Greater focus has been given to the consolidation of the BC market through take-overs and mergers than on developing new products and approaches to meet customer requirements. Contracts are still typically 3-5 years with no ability to change levels of resources within this time; Supplier costs are being reduced by lengthening technology refresh cycles; The need for specialist recovery workplace sites and hardware supplies seems unquestioned. Consultancy houses also remain focused on ‘churning’ fees from their customer base by recommending BC lifecycle projects rather than addressing specific issues and requirements

To respond to the customer’s management agenda BC practitioners and suppliers should be focusing on innovation in BC strategy including :

- Negotiation of more flexible contracts which allow changes to numbers of standby desks (including location) and technology within a contract term.

- Turning workplace recovery sites into managed office facilities which can be used both for BC requirements and also for business-as-usual requirements such as conferences, training, systems testing etc.

- Using new technologies such as Storage Area Networks, Data Vaulting, Remote Systems Access, Voice over IP (VOIP) and Applications Anywhere to reduce the need for hardware and office space dedicated solely to BC requirements.

- Using Consultancy firms for shorter, more focused projects and services rather than the total lifecycle solutions and support.

- Using specialist consultants on a ‘retainer’ or ‘call-off’ basis to provide the 10% of the BC activity focused on strategy, project management and crisis management/scenario testing.

- Using standard Office software tools for BC planning rather than ever more complex specialist database tools which require training and dedicated resources to use.

Conclusion

BC practitioners and suppliers should focus on Integration and Innovation rather than standard process and recovery models. Only those that do this will thrive – those that don’t will lose management support which is the kiss of death for Business Continuity Management