Picture an orthopedic surgeon learning to perform arthroscopic knee surgery. Before he is let loose on his first live knee, the surgeon is going to learn and practice through a variety of methods: classroom learning, reading books and the latest published literature, practicing on models or cadavers, studying under and observing seasoned practitioners, and, before he is fully on his own, working under the careful scrutiny of his superiors and peers until he is fully capable of working independently with less stringent review and observation. Once he has achieved a level of professional competence, he is expected to maintain his expertise through continuing education and to share his knowledge with others learning his profession. After all, his patients could really suffer if he does not diligently apply himself to learning and validating proper techniques. Yet, despite the parallel risk to the enterprise, the typical
business continuity planner would be most fortunate to be exposed to anything approaching the equivalent level of education and training resources.
In the mid-1980's with what was to become known as business continuity, the equivalent level of training for what was then known as ëdisaster recoveryí was clearly not in place. There were two or three books, negligible training or peer networking opportunities, and a new industry that was inventing itself in dozens of different places as it went along. That was acceptable twenty years ago.
Now, a recent quick search on www.amazon.com shows a couple hundred entries for ìbusiness continuity,î about a third of which are not actually relevant; under ìarthroscopic knee surgery,î over 250 entries are listed. Scanning the titles and descriptions, I could almost say I could learn how to perform knee surgery from this list. Scanning the business continuity titles, I note there are substantial gaps in what I consider to be core areas.
An example: searching for ìbusiness impact analysisî or ìbusiness impact assessmentî yields a total of 49 entries, but only four of which include more than a mention or brief chapter
One might assume from these examples that there are many reference books on business continuity, but that would be incorrect. First of all, ìbusiness continuityî is an entire field, like orthopedics; ìbusiness impact assessmentî is a specialty within that field, like ìarthroscopic knee surgery.î Searching for ìorthopedic surgery,î which in itself is a specialty within ìsurgery,î which is a specialty of medicine, is a more appropriate level of search ñ which alone yields 1,364 entries!
The point in this analogy is simple: as an industry and profession, Business Continuity has, to date, done a lackluster job of building a common body of knowledge. As George Santayana (1863ñ1952) observed, ìThose who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.î In the field of Business Continuity, I might rephrase this to ìthose who cannot learn from the experiences ñ and mistakes ñ of others are doomed to repeat them.î
Indeed, possibly the practice of Business Continuity has been handicapped by the limited availability of published reference works. There are exceptions, of course: the Disaster Resource Guide and a handful of other periodicals; the Common Body of Knowledge promulgated by the Business Continuity Institute () and the Disaster Recovery Institute International (), the two principal professional certification bodies; and a small but growing number of books. There are several excellent conferences, symposia and seminars.
As an industry, they have a long way to go. It is possible that an unexercised contingency plan could be worse than no plan at all. So, the most current book available on the subject of exercising contingency plans was published around ten years ago.
Similarly, exactly two books have been published on the subject of auditing business continuity; one in 1989, and one in 2002.
Enough about the problem! Let's discuss the opportunities.
There's an incredible opportunity for the business continuity industry to finally correct this shortcoming, and to burst out of its shell.
Arguably that the profession and the industry of Business Continuity should ñ and could ñ be vastly more effective. one could believe the single most significant reason it has not been more widely embraced by enterprises worldwide is that, as professionals, the industry has not been especially effective at sharing their knowledge and experience.
If they were university professors, they would be accustomed to turning out articles, lectures, dissertations and books. As employees of corporations, governments, non-profits and other organizations, these endeavors are, as often as not, considered frivolous or nonproductive. Simply put, maybe they turn this model around. It is not suggesting this would be a trivial activity, but maybe these actions are feasible to some degree in all but the most hard-pressed organizations. For starters:
For at least two years, every novice contingency planner should have a mentor who has had at least five years of professional experience. While there are mentoring programs in place, they are not widely practiced.
At least every other year, practitioners should be subject to a structured peer review. To some degree, this is accomplished through BCI's and DRII's certification program, but is not consistently practiced.
To maintain credentials after three years, every practitioner should either publish an article, or deliver a presentation at a conference or symposium, at least once every two years; the presentation or article should, as practical, address an issue or subject which is novel or not generally documented elsewhere ñ in other words, not ìbusiness continuity 101.î
Every senior practitioner should serve as a mentor at least one out of every three years.
In order to qualify as a senior business continuity expert, each practitioner should be published. If only one out of a hundred practitioners wrote a book, there would be no shortage of transferable knowledge. Of course, not everyone has the skill, experience, knowledge and time to write a book by themselves. Collaboration with other professionals or writers would be fine ñ some of the writings I have been most proud of over the years have resulted from heated debates and discussions with fellow practitioners.
It would be truly excited to see fifty or a hundred new books on business continuity show up. the profession would benefit greatly.
There are no comments on this page. [Add comment]