|
Anna Dupuy
|
18/02/2008 06:50 GMT
RE: Scenario Plans vs. Asset-based Plans
Although I agree with both responses and certainly to the extent that there are far too many scenarios to consider, the main objective is to ensure what ever the plan is, it covers off on the fundamentals.
Business Continuity is about being resilient so before you decide on your approach, be it asset or scenario based training, you need to be clear on your objectives and what it is you are trying to test or achieve.
I often ask the participant to think about their areas in terms of light switches and ask them to consider which lights need to stay on i.e. absolutely essential to continue even in a reduced capacity and which can be switched off.
The switches that remain on need to supported by the plan, while the one's that are switched off, although also requiring management to some extent, need to be catered for as part of the transition back to business as usual.
Further, depending on the event, it may not be possible to walk back in and turn all the lights back on, this may open the flood gates and cause havoc, there needs to be some consideration regarding the sequence of switching the lights back on and an understanding of how long this may take.
A lot of focus is on having plans and test scenarios and the proposed reaction/responses following an event i.e. having a recovery facility, identifying key staff, contacts and processes, however I believe being resilient and having a plan and scenario that caters for return to a business as usual environment is an area which although discussed in the BC world, is often overlooked when implementing or testing plans. Maybe this is something that will help when considering whether to conduct an asset or scenario based exercise.
|
