|
|
Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and
Risk Management
Crisis and Emergency Management
|
NOTICE: The ICDRM's monthly emergency managment forum, held at the GWU |
| February
2003
Volume 4 - Number 1 |
|
Links:
Current events
|
Disaster Recovery Journal, September 11th and Homeland
Security
Andrew McBride
The Disaster Recovery Journal has “been dedicated to business continuity since 1987”. This official statement has not changed since the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. However, prior to September 11th, the emphasis of the Journal was primarily from the narrower goal of disaster recovery to that of overall business continuity. Disaster recovery planning deals primarily with “the technological aspect of business continuity planning. The advance planning and preparations that are necessary to minimize loss and ensure continuity of the critical business functions of an organization in the event of disaster”. Business continuity planning is the “process of developing advance arrangements and procedures that enable an organization to respond to an event in such a manner that critical business functions continue with planned levels of interruption or essential change”. An analysis of the articles published by The Disaster Recovery Journal shows that the Journal addresses three areas within the topic of disaster recovery. These three issues are the use of information technology, business systems & processes, and recovery verses continuity. Prior to September 11th, The Journal put a emphasis on IT systems and issues over business practices, on business systems over business processes, and addressed disaster recovery over business continuity. The issue immediately following the terrorist attacks shows the quandary faced by the recovery community. Ten articles were obviously written prior to the attacks and show the “normal” issues addressed by the Journal. Two articles address the attack itself and how companies responded. For the first time one article addressed personal issues, “Creating Your Family Disaster Plan” by Keith A. Baker. The remaining three articles were a “call to arms” for business continuity professionals to raise awareness of the value they can bring to an organization. In the months following the terrorist attacks the Journal has prominently showcased the application of business processes to business continuity. Articles have shown continuity plans successfully undergoing real world emergencies and have discussed the advantages of public/private partnerships. Prior to the attacks 30% of articles discussed business continuity as opposed to disaster recovery, after the attacks 50% of the articles addressed continuity. Similarly, business processes were only addressed in 45% of articles prior to the attacks, rising to 75% after September 11th. The reverse is true for technology issues, the number of articles on this issue dropped 50% after the attacks. More recently the published articles have shown a drift back to the old magazine model of defining technological solutions to the issue of disaster recovery and business continuity. The terrorist threat has changed how people live their lives and how businesses cope with change. The Disaster Recovery Journal has widened its readership as the need for businesses to survive new threats has increased. They have done this by moving from an emphasis on recovery issues to the showcasing mitigation and preparedness. |