As I reflect on my first year as a business continuity professional, I contemplate what has made me successful to date. In my previous role of being an officer in the U.S. Army, I lived and breathed risk assessments and contingency planning (addressing a loss of resources). When I first started in the military, my focus was very tactical, ensuring that there was always a plan to replenish our basic supplies (e.g., bullets, food, gas, and water). These plans were very basic and more reactionary than anything else, but I always knew that as long as I had these resources, I could continue the mission. Continue reading
Bad ideas certainly are not exclusive to popular culture; in fact, articles and case studies litter the internet documenting both public and private organizations attempting to resurrect failed models and strategies in hopes that new capabilities or use cases will finally make a particular idea just as good in practice as it was in theory or on paper.
In the wake of several high-profile, unpredictable, catastrophic incidents (“Black Swan Events”) in 2012, Avalution received a number of requests to develop highly-specific, scenario-based plans from our clients. Planning for Every Scenario is “For the Birds” explains that Black Swan Events cannot be predicted, and advises that organizations that implement flexible strategies, applicable in almost any type of scenario to manage response and recovery, enjoy the highest levels of success when faced with a disruptive incident.
However, the demand for scenario-based plans seems to be back.
We understand why organizations may think scenario-based plans are a good idea; however, their appropriateness, utility, and long-term value is limited – much like line dances, vampire romance movies, and mullets.
Instead, in this perspective we’re going to use a case study to make the argument for a resource loss-based plan development approach. Continue reading
Muda. It’s the Japanese word for waste and the enemy in modern supply chain management and manufacturing. Since the 1980s, lean thinking has revolutionized the way businesses operate by seeking to eliminate muda and free capital held in wasteful assets—that is, assets that do not add value to the overall process (e.g. excess inventory or underutilized equipment). Lean thinking is important and helps businesses to improve their processes and their bottom lines. It does however beg one key question that risk managers and business continuity professionals must ask: “how lean is too lean?” Wantonly cutting out all perceived muda to save money can actually have the opposite effect down the road. Organizations with global supply chains inherit significant risk due to the potential impact associated with a supply chain disruption. In some cases, a disruption could threaten an organization’s ability to continue business or require large amounts of capital to recover. Organizations must fully examine their processes and supply chains to identify risk and make informed decisions on how lean is too lean.
This perspective—the third in the Risky Business Series—leverages a case study of the recent west coast dock worker strike to demonstrate the inherit risk of a supply chain that is too lean due to a virtual monopoly. This article also revisits evaluation and mitigation strategies from the first two Risky Business perspectives that organizations can use to reduce risk to an acceptable level. Continue reading
This article provides an overview of Professional Practice 4 (PP4) – Design, which is the professional practice that “identifies and selects appropriate strategies and tactics to determine how continuity and recovery from disruption will be achieved”. Strategy design activities are essential to translate outputs gathered during the analysis phase into actionable strategies that the organization can implement and refine over time to improve the ability to respond and recover from a disruption. Continue reading
This morning was a non-eventful morning. I was sitting in my office, sipping on my coffee, and working on my monthly reports. Then, the manager of our office building entered our lobby.
The Michael Brelo case is nearing an end. Closing arguments have been heard and a verdict is expected shortly. The question is, when?
Our building manager was concerned, and rightfully so.
Our office is located directly across the street from the justice center where the case is taking place. Just a couple weeks ago, we sat witness to the riots and devastation in Baltimore, and, from our ongoing monitoring of the situation and media this week, our team is aware that the City of Cleveland is actively bracing for the possible impact and chaos that could result when the verdict is announced. Continue reading
Reader Note: This article is a continuation from Avalution’s November 2014 article titled: We just did a BIA and Risk Assessment … Now What? How to Perform an Effective Business Continuity Gap Analysis. If your organization just finished a business impact analysis (BIA) and risk assessment, but has not yet performed a gap analysis, it may be helpful to read about performing an effective gap analysis before continuing on to this article.
Once an organization understands gaps between business continuity requirements (as defined in the business impact and risk assessment) and current capabilities, management can determine which gaps they wish to address through strategy selection – either through risk mitigation or resource-specific recovery methods. Determining methods to decrease the likelihood of a disruptive incident reduces the potential that a risk will materialize, while identifying methods to respond to and recover from a disruptive incident decreases downtime and protects the organizations’ brand and financial position (among other assets). Continue reading
Many organizations today aim to make operations as lean as possible. But, in doing so, are these organizations unknowingly increasing the risk of operational downtime and excess cost? Due to streamlining operations and eliminating redundant activities or suppliers, one misstep or disruption (either internally or externally), can result in time-consuming and costly operational delays, or much worse, impact market positioning or even threaten the survival of the organization.
This perspective is part two of a supply chain risk management-focused series called “Risky Business”. In part one, Managing Third-Party and Supplier Risk, we discussed the importance of protecting your organization from risks associated with a dependence on suppliers (and service providers), as well as how to analyze potential impacts and prioritize these risks.
In this perspective we’ll discuss the specific business continuity strategies and risk treatment options available to mitigate the risk associated with supplier dependencies to an acceptable level. Continue reading