Training and Awareness answers or recommendations, do I want a ‘B’ or ‘C’ team in, or do I want an ‘A’ team there? I’m sure most, if not all, would
want an ‘A’ team.
in Business Continuity
By TIM BONNO, CBCP
Benjamin Franklin said, “Without continual growth and progress, such words as i m p r o v e m e n t , achievement, and
success have no meaning.”
I’m certain if the
business continuity and
emergency manage-
ment fields were in place
during Franklin’s time, he
would have found them
to be both interesting and
worthwhile. And it’s in
these fields that we can
find great relevance to his
quote. After all, in a crisis
or disaster, we turn not
only to our plans but our
people to improve the situ-
ation we are in. We expect
that they will achieve the
recovery time and recov-
ery point objectives (RTO/
RPO) that are defined in
our plans, and that in the
end, we will be successful
in recovering our (criti-
cal) business functions.
It’s in these times of crisis
that our employees must
be the most knowledge-
able and possess the skills
necessary to perform their
response and recovery
functions flawlessly.
Training for employees
often ends up on the
cutting room floor when
budgets are slashed. The
primary reason training
is considered optional by
most is because it’s viewed
more as an expense
than an investment. ... To
overcome this perception,
you might choose to
use business continuity
exercises or an actual
response (measured
against some benchmark)
as a tool in which to
validate the effects of a
trained “responder.”
“
“
Best Practices
Looking at “best prac-
tices” within the business
continuity industry, both
the Business Continuity
Institute (BCI) “good prac-
tices” and the Disaster Recovery Institute
International (DRII) “professional prac-
tices” reflect the importance of training
and awareness. Both practices address
the need to design and
deliver education, training,
and awareness that will
enhance the skills required
to develop and implement
business continuity at an
acceptable level.
Delivering Knowledge
Over the past few decades we’ve seen
various ways in which to deliver training. Prior to 1990 delivery of training
was instructor-led. This method supplied
interaction between the student, training
material, and the instructor in a “
classroom” environment. In the late 1990’s,
“e-learning” caught on, and we swiftly
moved on to learning by way of online
technology. With this particular approach,
students merely sat at a PC (at home or in
the office), loaded a CD in to the drive, put
their headphones on, and listened to what
the instructor was saying. In most situations, tests were administered at the end
to ensure compliance. There is no personal
interaction.
More recently we’ve seen a delivery
method that takes advantages of both by
blending the instructor-led while using
e-learning which in turn produces a significantly higher impact with the students.
They no longer were left holding a mouse
in their hand and a handful of questions
with nobody to supply the answers. While
technology has certainly had a positive
impact on corporate training at large,
instructor-led training continues to be
viewed as a preferred delivery method in
the areas of business continuity and emergency management.
The Importance of Training
Unfortunately, our management teams
don’t always view training as an essential
or strategic tool. What’s one of the first
line items to get slashed when the company budget gets squeezed? OK, other
than business continuity? It’s training.
Training for employees often ends up on
the cutting room floor when budgets are
slashed. The primary reason training is
considered optional by most is because it’s
viewed more as an expense than an investment. This is completely understandable
when you realize that in many companies,
training and development aren’t focused
on producing a targeted result for the busi-
