Disaster Response relative to Corporate Continuity’

I believe there is fundamental difference in having business continuity of operations plan (COOP) versus the capacity to respond to disaster. COOP is to regenerate part of the business that was operational prior to the disaster so the business can function again. Deploying technology to disaster is setting up an entirely new site where there was nothing prior and the technology is not regenerating anything. disaster recovery planner should not be assumed to have the same skill set as person who deploys technology in disaster, and vice versa <!–more–>\\\\nA disaster recovery planner is looking to prioritize the service restorations of the technical infrastructure — in conjunction with senior leadership — and should set expectations on what will come up first. They may also have varying degrees of replication and duplication both physically and logically to mitigate the impact and expedite the recovery. Corporate continuity planning may also have the luxury of preplanning alternative locations, establishing agreements, staging equipment and developing personnel structures. The challenges are the politics: How to prove relevance to be on leadership’s radar and get their attention. How to show value to the organization at budget time despite not being used. \\\\nResponding to disaster with technology is different from this. The primary systems, servers and networks are still in place and fully functional. The goal is to stretch the connectivity to new location so people can communicate through voice and data mediums. The challenges are the fundamentals: technology needs shelter; safe place that it can function. It needs sufficient electrical power so that it can operate. And clean power too; few things will kill power supply or UPS like construction grade generator. circular saw doesn’t care how dirty the power is but electrical equipment is very finicky. During disaster, location with the basics can be difficult to find let alone identify ahead of time without knowing the disaster’s actual impact. There is also competition for these places. FEMA is looking for it. State government is looking for it. Other NGOs are heading that way too. The landlords know this and some will quickly dismiss charitable feelings when they believe large entity is coming who will pay top dollar for the space The perspective from inside an organization that does both of these is very interesting indeed. On one side are corporate COOP planners who are following the established best practices. On the other side are people that say “but, umm, we do this every day.” Here lies the rub and misconceptions. If the corporate planners rely too heavily on the disaster responders, they’ll fall short. If there is an event that causes the corporation to COOP, then there it is also likely that there is disaster that needs to be responded to. The mission of disaster response will take the priority for that team and away from the needs of the corporation leaving the corporate planners standing alone. On the flip side, if the disaster responders are not open and willing to share resources, then the organization will excessively spend resources to build separate yet outwardly similar caches of equipment. If the disaster responders do not take the corporate planners and COOP seriously, then the systems they assume will be there that allow them to respond may not be. person cannot extend network into disaster zone when the core of the network isn’t functioning There is something to be learned from both business continuity planners and disaster responders when it comes to effectively preparing business to withstand an incident. They are not that similar and they are not that different. It will require an open dialog where each side can acknowledge the other’s strengths and their own weaknesses <em>As parting acknowledgement or caveat, I’ve completely focused on the technology aspect here. There is just one facet of both COOP and disaster response which also needs to account for business mission, people, and other moving parts.</em>