8 Common Mistakes in a Business Continuity Plan
A business continuity plan may look complete on paper but prove unusable when the organization actually needs it. During a drill, the issues often become immediately apparent: outdated contacts, overly general procedures, unidentified critical dependencies, or decisions for which no one is clearly designated as responsible. Common errors in a business continuity plan are not merely a matter of drafting. More often than not, they reflect a lack of governance, methodology, or operational buy-in.
For CEOs, risk managers, CISOs, and business unit leaders, the challenge is not simply to produce yet another document. Rather, it is to build a business continuity framework that can actually be activated, is consistent with operational resilience objectives, and is sustained over the long term.
Common Mistakes in a Business Continuity Plan That Need to Be Corrected
1. Confusing a business continuity plan, a disaster recovery plan, and crisis management
The business continuity plan is primarily designed to restore systems, infrastructure, and data following an outage. The crisis management plan, on the other hand, organizes decision-making, coordination, and communication in the event of a major incident. The Business Continuity Plan (BCP) covers a broader scope: it aims to maintain or prioritize the resumption of critical operations, including the necessary human resources, suppliers, facilities, information, and technological resources.
Reducing business continuity to an IT disaster recovery plan is a common mistake. An application may be technically available, but the business may still be unable to process transactions due to a lack of authorized personnel, access to data, fallback procedures, or a service provider that can be mobilized. Conversely, a highly structured crisis response team cannot compensate for the lack of scenarios and operating procedures needed to continue business operations.
Best practice involves coordinating these mechanisms through explicit interfaces: activation criteria, responsibilities, escalation procedures, and interdependencies between business continuity, IT recovery, and crisis management.
2. Conducting an impact analysis that is too superficial
The Business Impact Analysis (BIA) forms the foundation of the framework. However, it is sometimes conducted using a standardized questionnaire that is quickly filled out by business units and then rarely scrutinized. The result is predictable: almost all business activities are deemed critical, recovery times are unrealistic, and dependencies are insufficiently documented.
A useful BIA does more than simply classify processes. It must identify the impacts of a disruption over time: financial, regulatory, contractual, operational, reputational, or those related to personal safety. It then enables the definition of consistent objectives, including the maximum acceptable duration of a disruption and the recovery time and recovery point objectives when information systems are involved.
The challenge lies in accepting trade-offs. Not all activities can resume at the same time or at the same level of service. Priorities must be approved by business unit leaders and senior management, as they involve resources, investments, and risks accepted by the organization.
3. Ignoring the actual dependencies between activities
A critical process rarely depends on a single tool or team. It may require an application, authentication, a telecommunications provider, a work site, reference data, signature authorizations, and employees with rare expertise. A business continuity plan (BCP) that does not map out these interdependencies is based on a theoretical view of the business.
This issue becomes particularly sensitive in highly outsourced organizations. A supplier may have its own business continuity plan, but its recovery times, communication commitments, or priorities may not be compatible with the client’s needs. The presence of a contractual clause is not sufficient to demonstrate business continuity capability.
It is therefore important to include critical third parties in the analysis: outsourced services, cloud solutions, supply chains, distribution partners, data processors, and intra-group dependencies. Depending on the level of criticality, this involves gathering evidence, reviewing the scenarios covered, and planning realistic contingency solutions.
4. Defining unrealistic business continuity strategies
Planning for widespread remote work, relocation to a backup site, or manual processing of operations may seem reassuring. These strategies are only effective if they are properly scaled, funded, and tested. A fallback solution that requires unavailable equipment, unprovisioned access, or a larger workforce than can be mobilized during a crisis does not constitute a business continuity strategy.
The desired level of continuity depends on the business, its regulatory constraints, and the nature of the scenarios. A customer-facing business may be able to tolerate reduced service for a few hours. A business subject to settlement and delivery, health, or safety requirements may need to maintain operations almost immediately. There is therefore no one-size-fits-all strategy.
For each priority activity, the minimum resources required, the selected fallback mode, the accepted service limits, and the conditions for returning to normal operations must be documented. This level of detail prevents confusion between a general intention and actual operational capability.
5. Developing procedures that are too lengthy or too abstract
In a crisis situation, no one can effectively review a 100-page document without a clear framework for action. Procedures must help people take action under time pressure, with incomplete information, and sometimes with reduced staff. They must therefore be concise, prioritized, and immediately actionable.
An operational plan specifies, at a minimum, who makes decisions, who issues alerts, who carries out actions, what resources are required, and how to report on the situation. Response guides, emergency contact lists, activation checklists, and contingency procedures are often more valuable than an exhaustive description of normal operations.
This does not mean that the system should be scaled back. Contextual information, analyses, and evidence of compliance have their place in governance documentation. However, the materials used during an incident must prioritize action, clarity, and accessibility—even when standard tools are unavailable.
6. Do not assign maintenance responsibilities
A business continuity plan (BCP) without an identified owner quickly becomes outdated. Organizational changes, employee departures, application migrations, new vendors, and regulatory changes gradually create a gap between the plan and reality. This drift is common when business continuity is treated as a one-time project rather than a management discipline.
Governance must designate responsible parties for policy, programs, business plans, IT systems, critical third parties, and exercises. It must also define a review frequency, update criteria, and escalation mechanisms for cases where corrective actions are not implemented.
Within a framework aligned with ISO 22301, the maintenance of the business continuity management system relies on formalized responsibilities, performance evaluations, and a commitment to continuous improvement. This framework is particularly useful for ensuring that the system is auditable without reducing it to a mere documentation requirement.
7. Test only the notification chain
A call or notification test verifies that contacts receive an alert. It does not demonstrate the crisis management team’s decision-making capacity, the availability of fallback solutions, or the teams’ ability to operate in a degraded mode. Yet many organizations still equate this type of test with a comprehensive validation of the business continuity plan.
Exercises must be progressive and based on plausible scenarios: site unavailability, cyberattacks, service provider failure, loss of a cloud service, unavailability of key personnel, or prolonged disruption of critical power. A tabletop exercise allows for the practice of decision-making and coordination. An operational simulation, which is more demanding, tests resources and procedures under conditions that closely resemble real-world scenarios.
The goal is not to point fingers at the teams. It is to identify gaps before a real incident brings them to light. Lessons learned must result in specific actions that are scheduled, assigned, and tracked until they are completed.
8. Neglecting training and the development of professional skills
A business continuity plan designed by a single department cannot adequately reflect the realities of operations. Business teams possess the knowledge of priorities, possible workarounds, informal dependencies, and customer constraints. Without their involvement, the business continuity plan risks being technically sound but operationally fragile.
Adoption requires role-specific awareness-raising sessions, regular exercises, and capacity building for those responsible for leading the initiative. For professionals who design or audit these programs, specialized, certification-based training—such as that offered by DRI France—helps establish a common methodology and apply recognized standards.
Turning the plan into resilience
The quality of a business continuity plan is measured less by its length than by its ability to support decisions and operations under pressure. A targeted review of critical activities, dependencies, strategies, responsibilities, and annual results often makes it possible to quickly identify the most significant vulnerabilities.
The most useful starting point is sometimes very practical: choose a critical activity, simulate its interruption for a set period of time, and ask the teams how they would continue to deliver the expected service. The discrepancies observed will provide a much more actionable basis for work than a one-off update to documentation.
This post is also available in:
