BCMM Level 2: Reactive

 Critical Areas of Level 2: Reactive in the BCMM

The Level 2: Reactive stage of the BCMM signifies a slight improvement over Level 1, but it still reflects a reactive and unprepared approach to Business Continuity (BC). While some essential awareness of BC exists, the organization lacks the structure and planning for effective response and recovery.

Here's a breakdown of the critical areas highlighting the weaknesses present at this level:

Limited Structure and Planning

Basic Awareness of BC. There's a general recognition of the need for BC, but it hasn't translated into a well-defined program. Management may understand the importance of BC initiatives but hasn't allocated resources or established a clear structure for them.

Limited or No Formal Plans. Basic plans or procedures might exist, but they are likely incomplete, outdated, or not documented in a centralized location. This lack of formal documentation makes it challenging for them to access, understand, and implement during disruptions.

Inconsistent Recovery Efforts. Recovery relies heavily on the actions of key individuals. Without documented procedures and clear roles, the effectiveness of recovery efforts can be inconsistent and unpredictable.

Reactive Response

Focus on Incident Response. The primary focus is reacting to disruptions rather than proactively preparing for them. This reactive approach leaves the organization vulnerable to delays and confusion during critical moments.

Limited Training and Awareness. Employees may have minimal training or awareness regarding BC procedures. This lack of knowledge hinders their ability to respond to disruptions and participate effectively in recovery efforts.

Uncoordinated Communication. Communication during disruptions is likely to be reactive and unplanned. Without a defined communication plan, inaccurate or conflicting information may be disseminated, leading to further confusion.

Limited Evaluation and Improvement

No Testing or Exercising. Formal testing or exercising of potential response plans is absent. This means the organization has no way to gauge the effectiveness of its current BC approach or identify areas for improvement.

Limited Learning from Incidents. Lessons learned from past incidents may not be formally captured or incorporated into BC practices, hindering the organization's ability to learn and improve its BC program.

Summing Up ...

While Level 2 represents a slight step forward from Level 1, it still leaves the organization vulnerable to significant disruption and financial losses.  The lack of formal plans, training, and testing creates an environment where effective recovery largely depends on chance and individual initiative.