Sourya Biswas| Cloudtweaks
Two years back, in the aftermath of the Fukushima earthquake in Japan, I had written about how Cloud Computing offers a credible Disaster Recovery option. For companies which cannot afford to spend millions on their own collocation facilities, the Cloud remains the best option.
Of course, a lot has changed since then. Now, the ability to recover from disaster within stipulated timelines is no longer a business necessity, but a regulatory mandate, especially for any company operating in finance. Also, there has been a spate of standards, regulations and best practices that have further muddied the Business Continuity Management (BCM) and Disaster Recovery (DR) waters. That’s why I wanted to draw our readers’ attention to this particular white paper titled Practical Guidance for Evaluating and Simplifying Your Business Continuity Program Requirements .
Unlike most papers that provide dry advice in the third person, this paper speaks to you, the reader. Starting off with a fine personal anecdote from the author’s childhood, it convincingly makes the case that “too many cooks are spoiling the broth” as far as BCM and DR are concerned, asking the questions that many of you are asking –
-
How do I determine which of these sources to comply with?
-
Which of them actually apply to my business?
-
How can there be so many varied sources, and are they really that different?
-
Do they all say the same things and how do I coordinate them all?
The paper presents a step-by-step approach to the problem. Its first ask is to “eliminate what doesn’t apply to you.” In this broad category, several areas are highlighted – laws, industry, best practices, location of business and program maturity level. In this manner, it covers all the areas that need to be considered when discarding irrelevant options.
The second step is much more detailed, covering prioritization, resource coordination, resource utilization, monitoring, auditing, etc. Covering those details is beyond the scope of this article, and you will be better served by downloading the paper for free and reviewing it yourselves.
In conclusion, I would say that the paper does a good job in helping readers navigate the myriad alleyways of BCM and DR. Personally speaking, I think it could’ve used better presentation.
