Talk:Business continuity planning/Archives/2021

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

BSI standard 25777:2008 is replaced by ISO 27031:2011 so should reference to that withdrawn standard be removed from the list? I think it causes unnecessary checking for information seekers. Sohannin (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I raised the following article once before and I believe the current article has addressed all the objection points raised during the first round:

1. No references - References Added.
2. BCP is not "a methodology to create a manual" - Wording corrected.
3. BCP has a lot of overlaps with the risk management process, but this article doesn't even consider that link. - Referenced in the first paragraph, since this is not an article about Risk Management, risk management doesn't need to be explained.

1. no examples of BCP in real life. - Added
2. No examples of failure of organisations which did not do it and had problems because of it. - Added
3. No examples of failures of organisations which did do it. - Added
4. no comments on risk acceptance and the impossibility of completely protecting against all disasters.
5. extremely focused on small business / office scenario, what about BCP for large factories? Does the BCP methodology not cover that area? - Disagree with this point. The BCP process is applicable to any type of activity, as long as the organization classifies a non-office function like distribution as "critical". I think this is clear.
6. what about other ways of doing it? - Sorry, there is not other ways of going through a BCP process. If you bypass the process (or a phase in the process), your plan will stink....
7. please add copyright notice to your diagram. - Done
8. please add comparison to methodologies used in Japan and Taiwan where a disaster like 9/11 is considered relatively small and massive earthquakes are expected to be handled effectively. - BCP process is the same regardless of the location or the threat!
9. please consider linking citations - Added.

Let’s see what the second round turns up. Please review for featured article status Revmachine21 12:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks like a nice article so far (I'm no expert in the field, so I can't judge any content). As a laypeson, however, I'm missing context. Where does BCP come from? You must establish that it's not original research rightaway by mentioning who originated this methodology, or in what field it started. Any books to add to the references? JRM 14:43, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Thanks again JRM, good input. My professional background is in BCP (i.e. BCP Manager) and this content originated from my head; I was trained on the job in the finance industry. I will need to research the historical precedents to the 'science'. BCP methodology is advocated by governments for organizations of all sizes so it is not proprietary. This can be a highly complex field and I am struggling to keep the context general enough for small industry, non-profit, educational organizations etc. As way of reference, my last firm's BCP manual was 400+ pages long. From your comments sounds like I've made it too generic and need to add color. Revmachine21 15:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Genericity is not bad; Wikipedia is a secondary source. However, anything we say should also be verifiable—i.e, we must mention what we're generalizing over. ("Cat flinging is a hobby practiced by sadists. It was first mentioned in a 1974 article by Isaac Isaacson published in "Unethical Biology" [...] According to Fred Foobar of the Ministry of Excellence, one should always keep the cat to be flung by the tail, but multiple sources, including the Association of Feline Deviants, claim any body part will do.") Etcetera, etcetera, followed by references to the article, Foobar's statement, and multiple references including one for the AFD.

Paraphrasing and summarizing is allowed (necessary, even), but we should always strive to check our facts and cite our sources. An article that's "made up" by someone from working knowledge is better than none at all (in fact, the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia starts like that and many never get any further), but an article that can mention where it came from is even better. However, that's not of immediate importance. You can focus on getting everything of importance in before trying to tie it all to sources. See also Wikipedia:How to write a great article, which goes in great detail on how to best approach this sometimes daunting task. JRM 18:57, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Can I make a few comments on the article introduction?

This article is redirected from Business Continuity Management and the terms are largely interchangeable. I actually think management is a better reflection of what actually happens, the word planning assumes never actually doing. Would it be appropriate to mention the fact that the two terms are commonly interchanged.

It is not necessarily a peer mentored process, why is this one in

It does not produce a plan but a capability. This seems to reflect that the whole point of BCP is to create a plan

The aim should be to recover some or all of an organisations processes but critically, and this is not mentioned, to a pre agreed level. It is not about business as usual but getting to an agreed level within a target time

It does seem to be UK centric with no mention in the introduction of other standards such as the North American NFPA 1600, Australian HB292/3 and ISO/PAS 22399. Also not sure what the Civil Contingencies Act in the UK has much to do with the subject.

Prior to the introduction of BS25999 BCM professionals did not have to rely on BS7799 as stated in the article. BS7799 and its subsequent revisions is an Information Security Management standard that includes a section on business continuity. One of the three pillars of information security management is availability. This is obviously relevant but there were other documents that BCM professionals could use including PAS56 (a fore runner of BS25999), earlier versions of NFPA1600, earlier versions of HB292/3 and the various generally accepted practice documents produced by the BCI and DRI

Would it be appropriate and accepted to make some changes based on these observations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsungjohnny (talk • contribs) 15:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The topic of the page is Business Continuity Planning. It is thus preferable not to over-develop tangental aspects. Equally, not use additional material to place links to your own site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.37.52 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting changing the content, not to develop tangential topics or link to my own content. Please read my suggestions rather than jumping to conclusions. Samsungjohnny (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Change of content for an established page like this should be evolutionary and built upon long term consensus. Radical change, is not required. Previous edits illustrate my concern. 66.84.37.52 (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, whatever. I will present my suggestions in another way then if a wholesale change is not the correct way of moving forward. The introduction to the article suffers from a UK focussed perspective and is a little misleading in some respects not accurately reflectng the current best practice in BCP, so here goes, my tuppence worth for user review

FIRST PARA Remove peer mentoring. BC Planning is not necessarily a peer mentored process

Change logistitical plan to capability. Capability is a mcuh more relevant subject because the plan is made up from a variety of processes, systems etc

Add after predetermined time, and to a pre defined level. A recovery does not necessarily have to be to a full level but will probably be at a reduced level

Remove extended disruption and replace with disruptive event. This leads the reader into thinking that the only things that cause business continuity to be used is a disaster or extended disruption but BCP seeks to mitigate a broad range of disruptions

Remove the logistical plan is called a business continuity plan. Business continuity planning produces a wide range of documented systems only one of which is the business continuity plan

SECOND PARA Change mission to activity and change longterm health to longterm viability

Broaden out the range of incidents described to include, IT problems, information security breaches and others

THIRD PARA Change the word lax to poor. Lax indicates a lack of activity but it is not just the lack of activity but also the wrong activity

FOURTH AND FIFTH PARA These seem to be very UK focussed and I am not sure what the UK Civil Contingencies Act has to do with the subject. Can I suggest replacing these two paragraphs entirely to refelect the fact that a number of professional institutes and standards bodies have standards and guidance documents, maybe listing some examples. The previous edit that has been stricken did include a suggestion to this but I wont be so prescriptive here.

Over to editors for view Samsungjohnny (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

See peer review article updates before mass reversion of Master Business Continuity Planner (MBCP) work-in-process

-- 66.45.145.191 14:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: This migation process required purging all external URLS

-- 66.45.145.191 14:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Replaced non-"How To" sections with corrected peer review version.

geoWIZard-Passports 10:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

BCP methodology is scalable for an organization of any size and complexity. Even though the methodology has roots in regulated industries, any type of organization may create a BCP manual, and arguably every organization should have one in order to ensure the organization's longevity. Evidence that firms do not invest enough time and resources into BCP preparations are evident in disaster survival statistics. Fires permanently close 44% of the business affected [1]. In the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, 150 businesses out of 350 affected failed to survive the event. Conversely, the firms affected by the Sept 11 attacks with well-developed and tested BCP manuals were back in business within days [2].

A BCP manual for a small organization may be simply a printed manual stored safely away from the primary work location, containing the names, addresses, and phone numbers for crisis management staff, general staff members, clients, and vendors along with the location of the offsite data backup storage media, copies of insurance contracts, and other critical materials necessary for organizational survival. At its most complex, a BCP manual may outline a secondary work site, technical requirements and readiness, regulatory reporting requirements, work recovery measures, the means to reestablish physical records, the means to establish a new supply chain, or the means to establish new production centers. Firms should ensure that their BCP manual is realistic and easy to use during a crisis. As such, BCP sits along side crisis management and disaster recovery planning and is a part of an organization's overall risk management.

The development of a BCP manual has five main phases: analysis, solution design, implementation, testing and organization acceptance, and maintenance.

Much of the BCP material on the internet is sponsored by consultancies who offer fee-based services for BCP solution development, however basic tutorials are freely available on the internet for properly motivated organizations [3].

From reading this it seems that the whole point of BCP is to produce a manual. This is not the case at all. It is to produce an ongoing capability and changes with the organisation and its goals and resources.

It also defines the BIA process in rather prescriptive terms. A BIA can and should be suitable for the organisation not following the defined zones as described here

The description about BCP post Y2K and post the 9/11 attacks are extremely US focussed. The UK, which has experienced 30 odd years of Northern Irish terrorism has developed arguably the most mature BCP capabilities precisely because of it.

The various standards and accepted best practice guidelines from various public and private sector organisations seek to promote BCP so that organisations are not compelled to seek third party consultants

The main area of concern I have for this section though is the concentration on producing a BC Manual

Samsungjohnny (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The goal of the solution design phase is to identify the most cost effective disaster recovery solution that meets two main requirements from the impact analysis stage. For IT applications, this is commonly expressed as:

1. The minimum application and application data requirements
2. The time frame in which the minimum application and application data must be available

Disaster recovery plans may also be required outside the IT applications domain, for example in preservation of information in hard copy format, or restoration of embedded technology in process plant. This BCP phase overlaps with Disaster recovery planning methodology. The solution phase determines:

• the crisis management command structure
• the location of a secondary work site (where necessary)
• telecommunication architecture between primary and secondary work sites
• data replication methodology between primary and secondary work sites
• the application and software required at the secondary work site, and
• the type of physical data requirements at the secondary work site.

The implementation phase, quite simply, is the execution of the design elements identified in the solution design phase. Work package testing may take place during the implementation of the solution, however; work package testing does not take the place of organizational testing.

The purpose of testing is to achieve organizational acceptance that the business continuity solution satisfies the organization's recovery requirements. Plans may fail to meet expectations due to insufficient or inaccurate recovery requirements, solution design flaws, or solution implementation errors. Testing may include:

• Crisis command team call-out testing
• Technical swing test from primary to secondary work locations
• Technical swing test from secondary to primary work locations
• Application test
• Business process test

At minimum, testing is generally conducted on a biannual or annual schedule. Problems identified in the initial testing phase may be rolled up into the maintenance phase and retested during the next test cycle.

Maintenance of a BCP manual is broken down into three periodic activities. The first activity is the confirmation of information in the manual. The second activity is the testing and verification of technical solutions established for recovery operations. The third activity is the testing and verification of documented organization recovery procedures. A biannual or annual maintenance cycle is typical.

All organizations change over time, therefore a BCP manual must change to stay relevant to the organization. Once data accuracy is verified, normally a call tree test is conducted to evaluate the notification plan's efficiency as well as the accuracy of the contact data. Some types of changes that should be identified and updated in the manual include:

• Staffing changes
• Staffing persona
• Changes to important clients and their contact details
• Changes to important vendors/suppliers and their contact details
• Departmental changes like new, closed or fundamentally changed departments.

As a part of ongoing maintenance, any specialized technical deployments must be checked for functionality. Some checks include:

• Virus definition distribution
• Application security and service patch distribution
• Hardware operability check
• Application operability check
• Data verification

As work processes change over time, the previously documented organizational recovery procedures may no longer be suitable. Some checks include:

• Are all work processes for critical functions documented?
• Have the systems used in the execution of critical functions changed?
• Are the documented work checklists meaningful and accurate for staff?
• Do the documented work process recovery tasks and supporting disaster recovery infrastructure allow staff to recover within the predetermined recovery time objective?

As suggested by the diagram included in this article, there is a direct relationship between the test and maintenance phases and the impact phase. When establishing a BCP manual and recovery infrastructure from scratch, issues found during the testing phase often must be reintroduced to the analysis phase.

-- 66.45.145.191 13:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the addition of this descriptor to the introductory image? I certainly did not have 'managing collaborative groups' in mind when I created the image. When looking at the wikilink to the MCG outine, nothing particularly jumped out at me to indicate why MCG had any relevance to BCP or the planning process. Please explain your reasoning. Thanks in advance. P.S. Some of the recent changes are quite nice additions. Revmachine21 10:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeat request for clarification... otherwise I'm deleting the text. Revmachine21 02:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

An article about the standard for BCP would seem to have a huge overlap with this article. Is there really sufficient distinguishable material for a separate article? -- Whpq 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. BS 25999 is a significant new development and will evolve into a large topic itself especially when it becomes and ISO standard. It should not be merged into this topic.Binarygal

I don't agree with the merger proposal. BCP stands independent of BS25999 and was in existence before the standard. Seems to me that the BS25999 article needs a rework and expansion in line with the other BSI standards. Revmachine21 02:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I wikified the Bs 25999 page today, but do not have enough experience with the subject to expand the article. As said above, it needs a rework as well. I originally supported a merge based upon the shape of the Bs 25999 article, but I'm deferring to others on this one - they know more than I do about the appropriateness of the merge. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 23:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Intro paragraph grew (in a good way from an information standpoint) and got clunky. Let's be more careful from a style perspective when editing! The Introduction section has been expanded with materials moved out of first paragraph. IMO, the Intro section needs more work. I will do what I can but request collaboration from those other Wikipedian's monitoring this page. Revmachine21 01:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BCP is more than recovery from disasters: fire, flood, earthquake and/or pandemics. BCP is a plan to handle all of the bumps thrown at a business: competitive price drops, worker strikes, increased minimum wage etc.... The data on this page is good, but it seems to be excessively focused on the DRP side of BCP (and the DRP page is lacking much of this material). Maybe this could be refocused in the future? Iam.the.Unkn0wn1 4:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the author of this fine article consider adding comments regarding NFPA 1600 to the standards discussion. As it stands now, readers will assume that the only BCP standard that exists is BS25999, which is used primarily in the UK. In the U.S., the predominant standard is NFPA 1600, and I believe it deserves equal attention.

--MJKuras 18:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)MJKuras

The standard provides a best practice framework to minimize disruption and maximize recovery time Excuse me, could somebody explain me in a sentence, why a long recovery time is better than a short one? If I were a company, I would maximize recovery speed or minimize recovery time.--Kifo (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Seems the entire phrase doesn't belong there. Removing it........ My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

This article does not really discuss business continuity planning, but almost exclusively the subset of it that is disaster recovery, and indeed primarily only with reference to natural disasters, rather than collapsing and needing to be recovered.

The fundamental goal of business continuity planning is assurance of resilience so that business continues to operate in the face of incidents. This point is so fundamental I'm amazed it has been omitted by the authors of this article. 212.159.59.5 (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Business continuity planning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060810074640/http://www.fema.gov:80/business/bc.shtm to http://www.fema.gov/business/bc.shtm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513081920/http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/Research/RFLithiumIonBatteriesHazard.pdf to http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Business continuity planning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303224604/http://www.virtualdcs.co.uk/blog/business-continuity-planning-rpo-and-rto.html to http://www.virtualdcs.co.uk/blog/business-continuity-planning-rpo-and-rto.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fema.gov/business/bc.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

X Xkxjxjx02 (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)