.jpg){kind=link}
- Published
- Updated
A documented backup plan does not by itself show that a service will continue during disruption. Primary and alternative workflows may share a critical dependency and fail together. Continuity review should examine actual activities and information handovers rather than merely the names assigned to plans.
Scope of the decision
A shared dependency might be one contact person, physical location, external service or decision authority. These issues do not all need the same technical solution. Explain with the vendor which conditions would stop a critical activity and the boundaries within which an alternative can operate.
Worked review
Suppose a backup courier is listed for sample collection, but both couriers use the same closed distribution centre. A tabletop scenario reveals the dependency. The team assesses a suitable alternative route, sample acceptance conditions and decision ownership instead of simply adding a second company name.
Practical checks
- Map critical dependencies shared by the main and alternative workflows.
- Explain who can decide during disruption and within which limits.
- Evaluate effects of the alternative on participants, samples or data using an example.
Acceptance and limits
Acceptance requires evidence that the alternative is feasible for the chosen disruption scenario and that its limitations are understood. Passing one scenario does not establish resilience against every disaster. Vendor changes or new service steps may require reconsideration of earlier continuity assumptions.
Frequently asked questions
- Is using two vendors sufficient?
- No. Understand shared dependencies and the actual capacity to hand over the work.
- Must every scenario involve a real outage?
- No. Select an appropriate authorised method and explain what a tabletop exercise cannot demonstrate.