The problem is that BC is not the same as DR. The two efforts require different information collected from different sources. Continuing the business is much broader and more complex than recovering from a disaster. BC includes such on-going risk factors as competition, consumer confidence, and investor confidence - just to name a few factors that impact a business’ viability. Coincidentally, these are the same issues that are dealt with on a daily basis by senior management.

BC is strategic and tactical in nature, whereas DR is operational. That means a whole new paradigm is needed to be effective at BC. First, planning must start at the same place as a company’s business plan: the revenue. Which markets are profitable and which products are being consumed? How will we protect our market share and with what products? Who is our competition and what are they doing to impact our revenue? What new opportunities have presented themselves that we had not anticipated?

The key to BC is its link to the company’s business plan. The identification of key objectives that must be achieved in spite of changes to the company’s operating systems or the competitive profile of the market place. BC must make provisions to recognize any change that impacts the company’s ability to achieve these goals and react quickly to get back on track before the impact is irreversible. Simultaneously, BC must be able to identify opportunities that arise so that management can take advantage of them to improve the company’s current and future performance.

It should be apparent that BC is not oriented to the same trigger factors that prior disaster recovery planning models used. It is oriented to the same factors that generate tactical and strategic changes to a company’s business plan. If you don’t understand how to develop and manage a business plan, how can you hope to develop a plan to run a company when confronted with unforeseen risk factors or new opportunities that will impact the company’s markets or financial security? BC also must be oriented to those factors that senior management has identified as paramount to support market share, consumer confidence, or investor confidence. Loss of these factors will put a company out of business much faster than any other form of disaster. Additionally, a missed opportunity can be every bit as costly as a building fire.

Further compounding the importance of effective BC is the fact that most risk factors that place the company’s “continuity” in jeopardy are seldom insurable factors. Unlike loss of power, fires, or tornadoes, the emergence of a new competitor, loss of consumer confidence, a reduction in the strength of the economy, or the loss of investors are not insurable risks.

Business continuity is not just another term for traditional planning designed to deal with power outages and natural disasters. It is a far more complex and substantially more demanding type of planning. Our current educational programs are still oriented to the traditional subjects with little or no development of the skills necessary to be an effective strategic or tactical planner for a company. Yet it is this skill set that is necessary to develop and implement real business continuity.

John M. Stagl, CBCP is a consultant with Belfor and a member of the Continuity Insights Editorial Advisory Board. He can be reached at (800) 421-4109.