Search results

This paper explores the strategies and roles for the organisation’s corporate real estate function during times of increased uncertainty. Although business continuity planning (BCP) might appear to be a separate and unique effort, there are synergies between continuity planning and standard business planning functions. It is suggested that enterprises should avoid the historically common mistake of stove‐piped planning within the context of BCP. Rather, enterprises must fully embrace an integrated approach to business continuity from crossfunctional to cross‐informational. If done correctly, business continuity planning can become a strategic asset that fully leverages an essential factor, the corporate real estate function.

The purpose of this paper is to present a multi‐usable business continuity planning methodology. It comprises business continuity planning on the organizational and departmental levels.

The methodology has been developed, tested and confirmed in three comprehensive cases. Senior management, IT managers and employees in the three case organizations have participated in this action research effort during the development, implementation or training on business continuity plans and planning.

The methodology has been tested and confirmed, and is suitable for explaining business continuity planning to senior managements and employees in both public and private sector organizations.

The methodology description can be used for explaining the issues to senior managements and forms the foundation for a business continuity plan, which is part of an organization's IT‐ and information security program. It may also be used to explain business continuity planning to other staff in an organization. The methodology can also be used to model business continuity planning, as a basis for training planning, and as support in different training contexts to achieve individual and organizational learning on business continuity plans and activities.

The methodology of using a staircase or capability maturity model is a commonly used concept and can be adapted to any organization.

The adverse interactions between disruptions can increase the supply chain's vulnerability. Accordingly, establishing supply chain resilience to deal with disruptions and employing business continuity planning to preserve risk management achievements is of considerable importance. The aforementioned idea is discussed in this study.

This study proposes a multi-objective optimization model for employing business continuity management and organizational resilience in a supply chain for responding to multiple interrelated disruptions. The improved augmented e-constraint and the scenario-based robust optimization methods are adopted for multi-objective programming and dealing with uncertainty, respectively. A case study of the automotive battery manufacturing industry is also considered to ensure real-world conformity of the model.

The results indicate that interactions between disruptions remarkably increase the supply chain's vulnerability. Choosing a higher fortification level for the supply chain and foreign suppliers reduces disruption impacts on resources and improves the supply chain's resilience and business continuity. Facilities dispersion, fortification of facilities, lateral transshipment, order deferral policy, dynamic capacity planning and direct transportation of products to markets are the most efficient resilience strategies in the under-study industry.

Applying resource allocation planning and portfolio selection to adopt preventive and reactive resilience strategies simultaneously to manage multiple interrelated disruptions in a real-world automotive battery manufacturing industry, maintaining the long-term achievements of supply chain resilience using business continuity management and dynamic capacity planning are the main contributions of the presented paper.

A recent article in Strategy + Business magazine set out that the three primary goals of the CEO for creating ‘business resilience’ include (1) securing the people of the enterprise; (2) securing the core business of the enterprise (systems, facilities, infrastructure and processes); and (3) securing the business networks (such as the supply chain). Given these three goals, who is better suited to take on a leadership role in coordinating business continuity than the senior managers of corporate real estate (CRE) and workplace resource (WR) organisations? For several years, as the concept of Corporate Infrastructure Resource Management (CIRM) has evolved, senior CRE managers have sought out ways to create additional value for the enterprise’s core businesses. The authors believe that CRE organisations possess many of the competencies required to play significant roles in their business continuity programmes, and seizing this opportunity to fill the gaps can elevate the profile of workplace to the executive level. This paper presents a simple framework, based on five leverage points, that will enable CRE to take a more active leadership role in managing business continuity and to move to a ‘strategy and continuity’ model for managing corporate real estate.

Traditionally, facilities professionals are responsible for maintaining business operations after a disaster by safeguarding people and the physical infrastructure. While most organisations equate disaster preparedness to business continuity, the aftermath of 9/11 brought forth some startling realisations about business survival and business crisis. Boeing, a global company that was affected in a number of unexpected ways, embarked on an approach that separated, yet integrated the Disaster Preparedness Community with the Business Community. The result was a Business Continuity Model that fostered further development of robust Business Continuity Plans to serve employees, customers, stakeholders and community. Facilities professionals, equipped with an understanding of today’s business crisis and the Business Continuity Model, can serve as a partner to their Business Continuity Representative to educate, develop and execute a Business Continuity Plan that ensures business continuance through any unforeseen event.

The purpose of this paper is to present a model to explain a business contingency process to senior management and other employees in organizations during education or training on business continuity planning.

The model has been developed and evaluated/tested in three comprehensive cases. Senior management, IT managers and employees in the three case organizations participated in this action research effort during the development, implementation, education or training on business continuity plans and planning.

The model has been evaluated/tested, and is suitable for explaining what may characterize a business contingency process to senior managements and employees in both public and private sector organizations.

The model can be used for explaining the issues to senior management and to form the fundament for building a business continuity plan which is part of an organization's IT and information security program. It may also be used to explain what a business contingency process is to other staff in an organization. The model can also be used to model parts of business continuity planning, as a basis for training planning, and as support in different training contexts to achieve individual and organizational learning on business continuity plans and activities.

The model is graphically visualized and the concept can be adapted to any organization.

In a world where continuous operations are essential for business survival, action must be taken to ensure that information and the business processes that use the information are continuously available. This usually involves the selection and implementation of a suitable business continuity plan. Implementing such a plan is, however, not always a simple task. This especially holds true for small to medium‐sized organizations. An implementation method that could be applied to most business continuity planning methodologies would, therefore, be a welcome tool, especially for small to medium‐sized organisations. This paper presents a theoretical model for such an implementation method.

There is a noticeable confusion in the literature between Business Continuity Planning (BCP) and Disaster Recovery Planning (DRP). The two expressions are very often used interchangeably especially when it comes to their application. In this paper, the differences between business continuity and disaster recovery are discussed. The disaster management cycle is also addressed in order to highlight the importance of having plans before, during and after the occurrence of an incident.

A review of the extant literature on business continuity and disaster recovery was made. A number of different views were then presented in order to provide a better understanding of the two concepts and their potential overlap/connection. The literature review was conducted in 2020 using a variety of academic resources ranging from journal articles to text books and credible Internet websites. Relevant journal articles were obtained from two primary databases: Emerald Insight and EBSCOhost. Keywords, such as DRP, continuity, disruption and BCP, were mainly used to facilitate the search for these resources and other related material.

Reviewing the literature revealed that BCP and DRP are not the same. Yet, they are used interchangeably very often in the literature. This indicates a possible relationship/overlap between the two. The relationship between BCP and DRP can be viewed from a variety of perspectives, which altogether provide a better understanding of their purposes and application.

On top of the need to differentiate between business continuity and disaster recovery, the widespread impact of the current COVID-19 crisis, especially on businesses and supply chains, has unfolded the necessity to deal with business disruptions in all their forms and the significance of quick and effective recovery. This research clarifies the purpose of BCP and the purpose of DRP and their role in combating impacts of disruptive incidents on businesses and organizations.

BCP and DRP are discussed extensively in the literature. Yet, few studies attempted to address the precise functions of the two resulting in an obvious confusion between their meaning and purpose which subsequently reduced the uniqueness of their application and the uniqueness of the application of each. Only a small minority of practitioners and academics recognise the precise differences between the two. This study aims at clarifying this misconception to a wider set of readers and interested parties.

The purpose of this paper is to address the problems associated with informatics and analytics projects that are developed in an “organic” manner. As such, this often circumvents formal project management principles and practices. The decision to do this is determined by organizational factors; however, even in an informal environment, ensuring that adequate disaster recovery and business continuity plans are in place for all mission-critical applications is vital to ensure the long-term survival prospects of an organization in the event of a disaster.

By adapting the principles and techniques of traditional disaster recovery and business continuity planning, an informatician can develop plans that integrate the requirements of their projects into a larger, organization-wide plan to recover from incidents and ensure continuity of business operations.

The use of disaster recovery planning and business continuity planning can help ensure the long-term viability of informatics and analytics projects within an organization.

Most business continuity planning is focused on projects that are formally developed and relatively large in scale. This paper applies these principles and practices to informatics and analytics projects that are developed informally and managed casually. Thorough an example, the point that more traditional disaster recovery and continuity practices can and should be applied in this less-formal environment is demonstrated.

Discusses the formulation of a business recovery plan. As a starting point, presents the business recovery timeline model. Gives a framework of components to be considered in a business continuity project planning process, i.e. a risk reduction programme.