Lootok

Menu

What's new?

Understanding the risk environment: Sean Murphy discusses nonlinear environment with Gary Klein

I had the pleasure to interview Gary Klein the author of “Seeing What Others Don’t,” “Streetlights and Shadows,” “Working Minds,” and “Sources of Power.” His research and experience is invaluable to anyone in the field of risk management. In this interview, Gary talks about the difference between a well-ordered domain (i.e., normal business environment) and complex domain (i.e., crisis environment). Understanding the characteristics and attributes of each environment is critical to understanding what tools, processes, and capabilities needed to be successful in each environment.

Read Post

Debunking myth #2: You need a business impact analysis (BIA)

Many of us business continuity management (BCM) professionals are convinced that a business impact analysis (BIA) is a “must-have” for any company. On top of that, we often believe the more information we gather, the better. But after the enormous effort to collect mountains of data and conduct endless interviews, we end up with little value to show for it.

Doing a BIA is expected of us, but do companies actually need a BIA? I guarantee that conducting an extensive BIA project is a quick way to exhaust your resources, stall your program agenda, and taint the reputation of your program. But if you’re willing to question why you’re doing a BIA, and then facilitate the process in a practical way for participants, you can maximize your investment. This eBook explores how to do this, and why it matters.

Download You need a business impact analysis (BIA), the second myth in Lootok’s series on the five myths of business continuity management (BCM)!

You need a business impact analysis (BIA)
Myth #2: You need a business impact analysis (BIA)

See Myth #1: The plan is the promised land.
See Myth #3: The risk matrix measures risk.
See Myth #4: It gets cheaper and easier.
See Myth #5: Best-in-class BCM software exists.

Read Post

Debunking myth #1: The plan is the promised land

As BCM professionals, we’ve long believed in the myth that a plan is our key to recovery during a disruption. Often, we hyper-focus on the plan as undeniable proof that the right actions will be taken in an incident. This is the worst possible approach. Learn why in our eBook, The plan is the promised land, the first in Lootok’s series on the five myths of business continuity management (BCM)!

The plan is the promised land
Myth #1: The plan is the promised land

See Myth #2: You need a business impact analysis (BIA).
See Myth #3: The risk matrix measures risk.
See Myth #4: It gets cheaper and easier.
See Myth #5: Best-in-class BCM software exists.

Read Post

Why don’t plans work?

Sean Murphy discusses the limitations of plans with renowned author and research psychologist Gary Klein.

Read Post

What does ISO 22301 look for in a business continuity plan?

An ISO-aligned business continuity plan includes business continuity procedures for managing a disruption and continuing operations, based on recovery objectives identified in its business impact analysis.

Read Post

Why spend time on business continuity? What you get out of planning for failure

In today’s business world, we are all faced with multiple responsibilities. It is easy to let things like business continuity, disaster planning, and crisis management fall to the bottom of the list, especially when there have been no recent crises to remind us of their importance. But planning for failure can contribute to your company’s success. Both in the event of an incident and in improving your current workflow, obstacles to continuity often turn out to be obstacles to success.

Read Post

What a crisis requires, beyond a barebones plan

The fact that Tokyo found the nuclear reactors in a worse state than previously announced underscores the need for honest, factual information for public consumption, and the importance of media in delivering this communication. The age where authorities view the public as a panicky wildcard that needs to be soothed, rather than as an equal partner in mitigating and recovering from a disaster, must come to an end – especially in a world where, thanks to the internet and information networks, information is disseminated to a wider audience at a faster rate than history has ever experienced before.

Was the community immediately surrounding Tepco’s reactor integrated in mitigation efforts prior to the incident? Subsequent actions and the announcement of possibly 30 billion dollars in claims indicate the opposite.

Read Post