Tag: Telecommunications

What’s the difference between Business Continuity (BC) and Disaster Recovery (DR)?

What’s the difference between Business Continuity (BC) and Disaster Recovery (DR)? This is a question I have had to answer multiple times. It is a very good question and the answer is not simple! So, as a good lazy ‘techy’, I tried to find the answer on the web. That way, when I am asked, all I would have to do is send a link.

I have used this approach multiple times for other questions I have received. It is convenient and a great way to avoid re-typing an answer. However, this time, I was not very successful in my quest to find an answer. I searched the web, multiple times, for hours without finding the perfect “pre-written answer” I was looking for. So I decided to stop being lazy and write it myself.

Now, if you are like me, and you’ve been looking for an answer to this question, feel free to use this one.

So, let’s start with a few definitions from the Business Continuity Institute (BCI) Glossary:

Disaster Recovery (DR): “The strategies and plans for recovering and restoring the organizations technological infrastructure and capabilities after a serious interruption. Editor’s Note: DR is now normally only used in reference to an organization’s IT and telecommunications recovery.”

Business Continuity (BC): “The strategic and tactical capability of the organization to plan for and respond to incidents and business disruptions in order to continue business operations at an acceptable predefined level.”

First, I’d like to say that I have a slightly different view of DR than BCI. Now, who am I to disagree with what BCI is saying? Well, bear with me a little longer and you will see how my interpretation of DR might help people understand the differences between DR and BC better. So here’s my definition:DR is the strategies and plans for recovering and restoring the organizations (scratch technological) infrastructures and capabilities after an interruption (regardless of the severity).

Unlike the BCI, I don’t make a distinction between the technological infrastructure and the rest of the infrastructures (the buildings for example) and nor I do differentiate between the types of interruptions. In my opinion, either a system is down or a building is burnt or flooded, both should be considered a disaster and therefore both require a disaster recovery plan.

Therefore DR is the action of fixing a failing, degraded or completely damaged infrastructure. For example, the 2nd floor of a building was on fire; the fire is now out so the initial crisis is over. Now the damage caused by fire must be dealt with; there is water and smoke on the 2nd floor, the 3rd floor has damages caused by smoke and the 1st floor has water damage. The cleanup, replacement of furniture, repair of the building and its structure, painting, plastering, etc. are all part of the disaster recovery plan.

What is Business Continuity then? Business Continuity is how you continue to maintain critical business functions during that crisis. Back to the example, when the fire started, the alarm went off and people were evacuated from the building. Let say you had a Call Center on the 2nd floor and this just happens to be a critical area of your business. How would you continue to answer calls while people are being evacuated? How would you answer calls while the building is being inspected, repaired or rebuilt? Keeping the business running during this time is what I call Business Continuity.

The same approach can be taken with a system crash or when the performance of a system has degraded to the point that it has impacted business operations. So fixing the system is DR and the action of keeping the business operations running without the system being available is BC.

In conclusion, BC is all about being proactive and sustaining critical business functions whatever it takes whereas DR is the process of dealing with the aftermath and ensuring the infrastructure (system, building, etc.) is restored to the pre-interruption state.

Should Business Strategy be Influenced by Technological Considerations?

Submitted by phay on Fri, 11/04/2011 – 09:01

Can business strategy be created in isolation of the technology considerations? There is a widespread belief in the Business Community that Business Strategy comes first and then technology follows in some way to support that business.

In my experience the common perception among organizations is that Business defines its strategy first and then technology enables the strategy.

Strategy Development Process:

In order to explore the role technology plays in shaping and supporting the business, let’s look at how strategies are developed.  There has been a significant amount of research done and published in understanding how strategies are developed.  Here are some relevant highlights.

There are two main dimensions to strategy development.

  1. Visionary thinking based on intuition, a sense, an ability to make bold predictions and define goals.
  2. Strategy development is largely based on scientific analysis, considering options and recommendations based on the analysis followed by implementation.
    • Strategic Analysis guided by scientific approach understanding your markets, competitors, value chain, bargaining power of the key stakeholders.  It also entails understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your organization against the opportunities and threat that the external environment presents
    • Strategy Formulation guided by analytical findings, alignment to the vision and overall goals of the organization to create a strategic road-map
    • Strategy Implementation is of course converting the strategy to real results by successfully implementing the strategy

It is the strategy development that is the focus of this article. Specifically, strategic analysis which then guides the strategy formulation and implementation.

Is there a place for technological consideration in strategic analysis? The answer is quite apparent as demonstrated through examples next.

Technological Influences on the Business Landscape

Examples of technologies that have had transformation impact on business value chain and have redefined markets and distribution channels are all around us.

The globalization phenomenon enabled by the internet is one of most profound. The Internet has impacted all the traditional dimensions of business strategy (reduction in barriers to entry, increased market size across the globe without limitations of geographic divide, increased competition etc.).

Financial services industry is a prime example of an industry where technology has transformed the value chain, redefined competitive forces and given the consumers tremendous amount of bargaining power.  Entry barrier have been declining, new competitor have emerged. Some financial products and services have become more transparent and commodities making the market more competitive. Internet as a tool to create a new service delivery channel (reduced channel costs, 24 by7 availability) has put pressure on the more traditional branch based channels. The resulting service delivery cost structure has changed. ING is operating on the model that bricks and mortar are not required to sell its banking products and services.

Healthcare value chain has been transformed by technological advances, linking healthcare records through electronic information exchange, diagnostic imaging from traditional film based to digital imaging has redefined the value chain and changed the balance of power between the suppliers, buyers not to mention the very nature of the products and services being delivered.

Retail Industry is another such example where technology has changed the business landscape.  Amazon’s strategic business model was completely defined by technology.

Relationship between Business and Technology

Given how profoundly technology has influenced our business and personal lives, it is hard to fathom how a successful business strategy can be defined without considering technological influences and enablers.  By creating a partnership between Business and Technology at the Strategy development stage, you are creating a strategy that is well formed and can maximize business value and competitive positioning by embedding technological considerations from the very start (and not an after thought!).

So why is it that there is a significant divide between the Business and Technology?  In subsequent articles, I will focus on why there is this barrier (real or perceived) that creates this divide between Business and Technology.

If you have examples to demonstrate the benefits of business/technology partnerships, please share your thoughts on this forum.

Blocked Community Arteries

Submitted by Martin Sumner-Smith on Fri, 02/11/2011 – 13:03

Online communities can form around many different technologies. But once they have formed, they can be very difficult to update, convert or move. The problem is not one of technology conversion, but rather user habits and preferences, which seem to become more solidified the longer the community has existed.I’ve been reminded of this as I started to get involved with some online automotive forums. Recently I purchased an old car that I am refurbishing as a hobby. There are now fantastic online resources, with detailed illustrated procedures that are far better than the factory manuals.You can also ask for help and people respond almost immediately, provided you don’t violate the many customs and expectations. The most important of which is that you must have searched first. Since the forum I use has been around for a decade and the cars it covers are from 16 to more than 30 years old, most issues have already been covered in previous posts, often many times. This also means the veterans are intolerant of people asking the same old questions. So I search really carefully first and only if I don’t find what I’m looking for make an apologetic posts along the lines of: “I have searched, but can’t seem to find out how to…”The community is very centered on classic, threaded discussions and search. Just how centered was recently illustrated by a post by a brake vendor offering to provide free brake pads to the person who posted the best explanation of why they should get free brakes, as judged by ‘like’ votes on Facebook. The resulting furor was really fascinating to watch.There were a succession of ‘Fail’ posts. The first started:

  • “I don’t have a facebook account so can’t enter. Don’t you have your own business website?”

Others chimed in with incrementing posts; very quickly 18 negative votes were posted. The comment about a business website certainly illustrated that the poster has missed out on current trends. Other anti-Facebook comments included:

  • “Rarely use the FB. Don’t Like”
  • “What’s a facebook?”
  • “I have no plans on signing up for facebook at all, ever”
  • “C’mon, without FB how am I going to check out all the girls that wouldn’t date me in 1985 and feel better now about the bullet(s) that I unknowingly dodged?”
  • “I don’t “do” facebook either, and it might be a long, long time before I find a reason to sign up for it.”
  • “I have some semblance of a life…”
  • “I am worthy of getting the brake pads for the simple fact that I don’t use facebook.”
  • “No interest in joining MyFace or any of the other ones. I’m waiting for the ‘winner’ to emerge. This one is probably just another fad like parachute pants and jackets with zippers all over them. Boy am I glad I passed on those.”
  • “News feature today mentioned employers and now banks using FB and twitter to help evaluate the qualifications of business/job/loan candidates.”

One poster was particularly incensed that the vendor had posted on more than one such site (which is a typical social marketing approach):

  • “When he posted this I went to his FB page and was pretty put out that it looked like they spammed every car forum out there with the same offer. Needless to say, I didn’t “Like” this.”

After this tirade, there was a tentative response from a few Facebook users. I was one of the first to point out that there was a Facebook page dedicated to this particular car, but supposed they would not be using it, which was quickly answered with an, “uhhhh… no.” There were actually a couple of positive posts:

  • “I actually love facebook. It is a very useful way for me to stay in contact with many friends that I would have otherwise lost due to lack of free time. I have re-connected with old friends and use it to schedule real life get togethers. It’s actually a pretty amazing site.”
  • “Wasn’t saying anything negative about FB, I’m on there entirely tooooooo much.”

One of the final posts directed to the vendor was spot on (if sexist):

  • “Don’t worry (not that you were) about the crotchety old hags on this forum somehow connecting your company to the terror threat of FB. Its just new and different, and not many here are early adopters.” And the last one:
  • “I found this funny on a forum dedicated to owners of 16-34 year old cars.”

So they are not open to change. Which is a pity because there are newer technologies that would actually help the community:

  1. The illustrated procedures would be far better in a wiki format that could be refined over time, rather than depending on original posts with some threaded discussion additions that are hard to follow
  2. Likewise, some of the threads are really just social conversations that have little to do with the subject car. A microblogging application would be far more suitable

This well-entrenched community is very much wed to a traditional, content-centric model (threaded posts and search) and most members don’t understand the people-centered, social model of collaboration. Although comprised of technically-savvy people, their preferred technology is old, as are their cars. I don’t think this community is ready to change.