The BCP Proving Ground: A Blueprint for a Successful Test

"A paper plan is just theory - its value emerges only under pressure. Now it's time to move from planning to proving by testing your plan under controlled conditions. A poorly prepared test can be worse than no test at all - it creates chaos, demoralizes your team, and fosters a false sense of security. This article is your blueprint for preparing to test your BCP, ensuring the process is organized, insightful, and ultimately strengthens your crisis response capabilities."

"Poor preparation can waste time, disrupt live systems, yield vague data or damage team morale. Without proper groundwork, you risk: Wasting Resources: A disorganized test burns time and focus without yielding valuable insights. Disrupting Operations: An uncontrolled test can accidentally impact live systems, creating a real incident. Generating Flawed Data: Vague objectives lead to vague, unactionable lessons. Damaging Team Confidence: A chaotic test can leave participants feeling less prepared and more anxious."

"This progression follows the "crawl-walk-run" model of readiness. Your BCP review process should start with a tabletop exercise - the "crawl" phase. This discussion-based session allows your team to walk through a hypothetical scenario to identify procedural gaps and communication flaws in a low-stakes environment. Once you've addressed the findings from your tabletop, you are ready for a functional or full-scale test - the "walk" or "run" phase. This is an action-based simulation where teams use their actual tools and procedures."

A BCP is only proven when exercised under pressure rather than left as a paper plan. Poorly prepared tests can create chaos, demoralize teams, and produce a false sense of security. Meticulous preparation is non-negotiable: assign clear roles, define objectives, and plan logistics to avoid wasted resources, operational disruptions, flawed data, and damaged confidence. Adopt a crawl-walk-run progression: start with tabletop discussion-based exercises to identify procedural and communication gaps, then advance to functional or full-scale action simulations. Use actual tools and procedures during simulations and address tabletop findings before scaling tests to ensure insight and resilient crisis response capabilities.

Read at Securitymagazine