Be Ruthless with Systems, Be Kind to People

This statement from Michael Brooks sums up my general philosophy for how I argue against traditional business continuity practices. Those on the receiving end, however, may take my comments the wrong way (understandable, I suppose). So, to avoid further misunderstanding, let me be unequivocal in my position and motivation.  

Like many of my colleagues, including those who ardently disagree with the things I say, I am very passionate about organizational preparedness. I would say nearly all of us are aligned in how we feel about the importance of the work we do. There is little question in my mind that we all want to do right by the organizations, teams and communities we serve. I do not question the motivation that people have or the spirit and enthusiasm that they bring to the table. I just question their methods. But that’s not personal.

I honestly believe that following the traditional business continuity lifecycle is a monumental waste of time and resources. I would even go so far as to argue that the activities and deliverables defined by standards like ISO 22301 make organizations less capable of dealing with disasters and significant disruptions effectively.

I say what I say in the interests of improving the practice. I genuinely feel that a great many of my fellow practitioners are on the wrong path. The work they are doing is not providing true benefit and that pains me because I really want them to be successful. I know, first-hand, the frustration of trying to adhere to the traditional lifecycle and the disappointment when the results are not reflected in improved response. I also know how rewarding and beneficial this work can be when executed differently. And I want everyone to be able to share in that. More importantly, I want organizations and communities to be in a better position to deal with major losses because I’m part of those communities and I’m a customer of those organizations.

That’s where I’m coming from. When you see me questioning assumptions or arguing a specific point, consider what I am saying and the spirit in which I am saying it. It is not personal and I only have the best interests of the profession and my fellow practitioners at heart. I know you do too. So, I encourage you to engage in the debate. Just don’t make it personal.