The BNM Discussion Paper establishes operational resilience as an outcome-focused capability, centred on a financial institution’s ability to continue delivering critical operations and services within tolerable limits under severe but plausible disruptions.
It reflects global regulatory convergence (BCBS, IAIS) and responds to Malaysia’s recent high-impact digital and third-party outages.
The BCM Institute’s Operational Resilience Roadmap integrates Operational Risk, Cyber Resilience, BCM, CM, Incident Response, third-party risk, and governance into a single, outcome-driven framework.
At a high level, the OR planning methodology follows these stages:
|
BNM Discussion Paper Expectations |
BCM Institute OR Planning Methodology |
How They Align |
|
Continuity of critical operations and business services |
Define Critical Business Services & Operations |
Both start by identifying what truly matters to customers and the system |
|
Shift from recovery-centric to resilience-first |
Operational Resilience as an outcome |
BCM Institute explicitly reframes BCM as part of resilience, not the end goal |
|
Identification of internal & external interdependencies |
End-to-End Dependency Mapping |
Direct alignment: people, process, technology, data, facilities, third parties |
|
Third-party concentration and substitutability risk |
Third-Party & Supply Chain Resilience |
BCM Institute embeds third-party risk into inter-dependencies mapping and impact tolerance analysis |
|
Impact tolerances based on harm |
Impact Tolerance Setting |
BCM Institute extends RTO/MTD to service-level and customer harm thresholds |
|
Severe but plausible scenario testing |
Scenario-Based Resilience Testing |
Both emphasise multi-layered, concurrent failure scenarios |
|
Board ownership and a single accountable executive |
Governance & Accountability Framework |
Clear ownership, escalation, and decision rights are core to both |
|
Continuous learning from incidents |
Continuous Improvement Cycle |
BCM Institute formalises post-incident learning into resilience maturity |
In the 2025 BNM Discussion Paper on Operational Resilience, BNM explicitly recognises that existing BCM, technology risk, outsourcing, and governance frameworks already contain resilience elements, but need to be reframed around outcomes
This mirrors the BCM Institute’s position that BCM is necessary but not sufficient for operational resilience.
Both frameworks move away from:
Toward:
This is a defining shift in modern operational resilience.
BNM’s emphasis on deep visibility into interdependencies aligns with the BCM Institute’s roadmap, where dependency mapping bridges BIA and resilience strategy.
BNM highlights governance quality—not technology alone—as the key differentiator between institutions that withstand disruption and those that fail. This reinforces the BCM Institute’s emphasis on:
For organisations already adopting the BCM Institute’s Operational Resilience Roadmap:
The BNM Discussion Paper effectively validates the BCM Institute’s operational resilience planning methodology from a regulatory perspective. It reinforces that:
Operational resilience is not a new discipline but a more integrated, outcome-driven approach to applying BCM, risk management, technology resilience, and governance.
Organisations that adopt the BCM Institute’s roadmap will be well-positioned to meet not only BNM’s future regulatory direction, but also broader global operational resilience expectations.
Comparison with BNM OR Paper with BCM Institute's Operational Resilience Planning Methodology |
||||
| C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 |
To learn more about the course and schedule, click the buttons below for the OR-300 Operational Resilience Implementer [OR-3] course and the OR-5000 Operational Resilience Expert Implementer [OR-5] course.
|
If you have any questions, click to contact us. |
||
|
|