What are the most common gaps or weaknesses in business continuity plans?

Fully agree with the involvement of senior management to review and align your BIA/BCP with the firms strategy and mission. But this should also be a key factor in the BIA review cycle. Taking a more holistic view of the impact of incidents on customers, stakeholders or the wider market.

Uma das lacunas mais comuns em planos de continuidade de negócios é a falta de alinhamento com as estratégias e a liderança executiva da empresa. Quando os planos não refletem os objetivos e prioridades da organização, sua eficácia é significativamente comprometida. A liderança deve estar envolvida na formulação e revisão dos planos para garantir que as iniciativas de continuidade estejam integradas à visão estratégica. Sem esse alinhamento, pode haver recursos desnecessariamente alocados ou, pior ainda, áreas críticas podem ser negligenciadas. A comunicação contínua com a alta administração é essencial para garantir que todos estejam na mesma página e que os planos sejam relevantes e aplicáveis.

A challenge in maintaining an up-to-date Business Continuity Plan (BCP) is ensuring sufficient financial and technical resources for this purpose. Additionally, having accurate and timely information is crucial. Therefore, the BCP update leader must be involved or in communication with the team handling highly confidential projects, such as during merger or acquisition planning. If the leader is not part of due diligence, they may discover the need for changes only after an event that requires BCP activation.

One of the best way to ensure alignment is really to have the senior management involved in the discussion of business impact analysis. The management would be best placed to understand what are the important aspects to their business lines and the impact of possible disruptions. Once that is established, it would be down to the line managers to work out the plans to support the continuity of the relevant business activities. We then complete the loop by having the same business managers to sign off on the supporting business continuity plans. Ultimately the litmus test would be through the meaningful conduct of the testing of the plan in a realistic scenario.

Inadequate Communication Plans, given the fact that efficient communication is critical during a crisis. When BCPs lack specific communication strategies, contact lists, and processes for keeping stakeholders informed, a gap arises.

This is common practice in most organisations I’ve worked in. I feel the direction of travel for BCP testing is, to align more with Operational Resilience scenario testing, and to be more agile to conduct short, sharp exercise based on new threats that could cause an impact. Some examples are, regional power outages, CBRN planning, climate change etc.

This is essentially a governance issue. There must be an overall governance document stating the policy around business continuity in the organization. This would include the regularity of testing and also the forum in which the results and the follow-ups to the testing will be discussed. There should also be a 'champion' to business continuity that sits at the board level to ensure appropriate representation and attention.

What we observe in the market are businesses that have numerous policies and documentation pieces. However, there is a lack of practical application of these policies and a deficiency in businesses. Creating a BCP that is simple and clear and incorporates all of this into an easy-to-follow guide is an ideal scenario. We emphasize the need for businesses to regularly practice their BCP plans, ideally on a quarterly basis. We also recommend introducing challenges, such as scenarios involving specific key individuals being absent during a crisis, and creating processes to address such situations. We not only suggest practicing your BCP but also simulating a crisis within a crisis scenario.

Think of it like having a fire drill at school. If you never practice what to do in a fire, everyone might panic when there's a real one. In business, not testing your continuity plan is like skipping those drills. You might have a plan on paper, but without testing it out, you can't be sure it'll actually work when you need it. Testing helps iron out any kinks, so when a crisis hits, everyone knows their role and can respond calmly and effectively. Without it, you're taking a big risk with the safety and stability of your business.

Outra fraqueza frequente nos planos de continuidade de negócios é a falta de verificação e validação por parte dos stakeholders. Quando os planos são elaborados sem a entrada e o consentimento de todos os envolvidos, a eficácia e a aceitação deles podem ser comprometidas. Os stakeholders trazem diferentes perspectivas e conhecimentos valiosos que podem revelar lacunas e áreas de melhoria. Realizar reuniões regulares com as partes interessadas para revisar, testar e validar os planos não só melhora a qualidade das abordagens, mas também promove um senso de responsabilidade compartilhada. Isso resulta em um plano que é mais robusto e que recebe o apoio de todos os setores da organização.

In an ideal world, every part of the organisation would be synchronised with their recover actions so as to ensure that the end-to-end delivery is co-ordinated. However, the reality is that most disruptions have a different level of impact on the various parts of the firm, which throws out the prioritisation of their recovery actions. This is where the Crisis Management team work as a conductor of an orchestra, bringing in the recovery steps as and when needed. So, it’s more important to ensure that the BC plans are reviewed and tested, and that the crisis management team are fully capable to lead the recovery, based on their important business services and their impact tolerances.

Again a governance issue which should state the stakeholders and also the training/communication of BCPs at the organization level. There should be proper accountability not just at the management level but at line management level and across the dependent business unit level(including external vendors and service providers). There should be regular communication by Business Continuity Managers and coordinators on the development and work done in the respective business units. Wider involvement during the testing of the plan also helps to create awareness - even though it may be expensive but it would be worse if BC plans fail in an actual disaster.

A significant but often overlooked aspect of a robust Business Continuity Plan (BCP) is ensuring that all staff and partners are not only aware of it but also well-trained in its execution. Without adequate awareness of roles, responsibilities, procedures, and tools, even the most well-crafted BCP can fall short when it matters most. Creating a culture of awareness and readiness is crucial. Sharing best practices, success stories, and opportunities for improvement not only reinforces the importance of the BCP but also fosters a sense of ownership and commitment among all stakeholders.

When there's a lack of awareness about business continuity, it's like playing a game without knowing the rules. Some people in the company might not even realize there's a plan in place for dealing with emergencies or disruptions. This lack of awareness can lead to confusion and chaos when a crisis hits because people won't know what they're supposed to do. It's essential for everyone in the organization to understand the importance of business continuity and their role in it. Without this awareness, you're leaving your business vulnerable to unnecessary risks and making it harder to bounce back from unexpected challenges.

As an attorney working in banking and dealing with small businesses, the most common impediment I see regularly is over-compartmentalization. The Owner(s)/Officer(s) of the small business may be the only ones with access or information related to the business structure or accounts, and when something happens to them, the business is left without access payroll, operating funds, etc. The business ends up first trying to sort out authorization for the business, then updating banking authority, then trying to operate again. There should be appropriate documentation available to your team and appropriate access to finances in the event that the disruption to business is from the top down.

Most business owners’ continuity plans consist only of a buy-sell agreement. The most common problem with many of these plans is that they don’t address the challenges that the business will face upon the owner’s death; they only say how and to whom the business should be sold. When owners die, the party to whom the business is transferred tends to run into two problems that the continuity plan does not address: the loss of financial capital and the loss of talent. Neither lifetime transfers nor transfers upon death provide the departing owner or the estate with financial security if the succeeding owner is an unacceptable substitute to lenders, nor will ownership transfers under this condition allow the successor to continue the business.

This goes back to having an agile BCP, capable of being tested against a range of scenarios/threats which have been scanned in the horizon.

A rigid and overly prescriptive BCP can hinder rather than aid in crisis management. It's essential to remember that no two crises are identical, and the ability to adapt to changing conditions is a critical strength. Allowing for variation and customization within the BCP enables organizations to respond effectively to the unique circumstances they face. Incorporating flexibility and adaptability into the BCP requires a proactive approach. It means continuously assessing and revising the plan, taking into account evolving risks, technology, and business practices.

Imagine your business continuity plan is set in stone, rigid and inflexible. But when a crisis hits, you realize the plan doesn't fit the situation – it's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. That's what happens when there's a lack of flexibility in your plan. Maybe it doesn't account for new technologies, changing regulations, or unforeseen circumstances. Without flexibility, you're stuck with a plan that might not work when you need it most. It's essential to be adaptable and open to change, updating your plan regularly to stay relevant and effective in the face of evolving threats and challenges.

It is also important for business owners to include estate planning and related issues when considering business continuity planning. A majority of all businesses in the United States are small businesses that are closely held entities. Without proper planning, and the right legal authority and documentation with the business owner's estate planning or corporate documents, you are jeopardizing the continuity of a business upon the current owner's death.

I have asked the very same question to GPT 3.5, which came out with 10 bullet points (most being common sense, so no surprise): 1. lack of regular updates 2. inadequate risks assesment 3. insufficient testing 4. incomplete communication strategies 5. dependency on key personnel 6. inadequate backup systems 7. lack of training 8. failure to consider supply chain disruptions 9. limited stakeholders' engagement 10. budget constraints Thank you, OpenAi, nevertheless we still need human brains to get some tangible results out of this. Thomas

This is the most fundamental part of the Business Continuity and Resilience framework. Without the co-ordination and integration with other parts of the company, then the BCP will not be as effective during an incident and will eventually be overlooked and become obsolete.

Get the governance right and have the right commitment/representation at the board/management level - this would not be an issue. BCM starts as a top-down approach but is most effective when built up from the bottom.

It's not enough for a BCP to exist in isolation; it should seamlessly align with and complement other plans and functions within an organization's resilience framework. By integrating the BCP with other critical plans such as disaster recovery, emergency management, crisis communication, and business recovery, an organization can leverage synergies, resources, and capabilities to mount a more effective and efficient response.

Just like your BCP should be a living document, your estate planning documents should also be living documents that should be amended and reevaluated as your business grows and/or changes. Often times there are financial ramifications related to your estate planning documents. For example, if you have a Buy-Sell Agreement that is funded with a Life Insurance policy, that policy should be updated as the valuation of the business changes.

The BCP should reflect the organisations priorities and vision. So by its very nature should also be updated and improved to coincide with organisational or environmental changes.

A BCP should indeed be a dynamic and evolving document that adapts to changes in the business environment. This includes incorporating the lessons learned from real-life experiences and staying up-to-date with industry best practices and trends. By embracing innovation and leveraging the latest technologies can greatly enhance a BCP's efficiency and effectiveness.

A common gap in business continuity plans is letting them gather dust. Your plan should evolve as your business grows. Regularly review it to ensure it reflects new challenges, technologies, and industry trends. Keep it flexible and responsive, so it’s always ready to meet the changing needs of your business. Continuous improvement keeps your BCP relevant and effective.

I am listing based on my auditing experience across companies, countries, and industry sectors: 1-BC plan is not known/ accessible to all 2-Context of the organisation is not written 3-The needs and expectations of all interested parties are not recorded 4-Regulatory and legal requirements are not recorded 5-Critical resources do not know that they have been identified as critical resources 6-Critical resources do not know/ understand the company's expectations from them during BCM invocations 7-Plan is developed as one time exercise 8-Roles and responsibilities are generally written, but Authorities have been forgotten

COVID has changed the BC landscape, compounded by the implementation of the Operational Resilience framework, and it’s fair to say that it was probably well overdue. That said, the changes have only been facilitated by the technology enhancements that were forced upon us to allow staff to work remotely during Covid. Ensuring that a solid BCP framework is in place to support the business and align to the Operational Resilience programme is essential to continue delivering our services to our customers and protect our staff and shareholders.

Ultimately, a lack of any of the above will create gaps. The biggest gap is created when the business continuity management program is broken. The program should include/align with our professional practices, in addition to the organizational mission/purpose. Where the program becomes dissected and may only function to create BCPs or any other component without the others, you will absolutely have gaps. Build the BCM PROGRAM around your goals and objectives, and make sure all areas of risk in the organization have inputs. Coordination and Collaboration are critical for success, and filling in those nasty gaps!

A framework i like to use as an example to help a business align to a BCP plans in the context of disaster recovery and cyber security is. Aviation, Navigation and Communication (Aircraft terminology for emergencies) 1: Aviation: Who is trained to be responsible for process, operation and maintenance. 2: Navigation: Follow a specific course of actions and steps outlined in the BCP by person, department and or tools. (hopefully been practiced in a table top) 3: Communication: Communication to security risk officers is vital, this may also extend to other stakeholders in the BCP as well as regulating bodies & authorities.

When working with clients who are small business owners, they do not consider business continuity because "they are the business" and if something happens, "they'll know what to do," but it doesn't occur to them that what might happen could be *to* them. While a Power of Attorney may be effective for a Sole Prop/dba, and an Agent could step in, that won't work for other business organizations. These clients need to prepare should they be incapacitated or worse. Will the business be able to continue without them (both from a professional standpoint, and from a legal standpoint)? Will the business be placed at a standstill until a representative for their estate becomes involved. Even a small business needs to plan ahead.