Operational resilience has seen an increase in attention across the world, with several regulations and guidelines emerging in different regions. However there’s a lack of clarity over the precise expectations and outcomes of operational resilience. This can mean confusion, particularly for global businesses that have to adhere to multiple regulations, according to a report by the Business Continuity Institute (BCI).
More than three-quarters of organisations have an established operational resilience programme, or are actively building one, the BCI report found. While the financial services sector has been the pioneer in the development of operational resilience, due to the regulation of that sector, there are an even greater number of organisations, belonging to various sectors, incorporating operational resilience. Most, 87.3pc of those belonging to the banking and finance sector confirmed that regulatory requirements are the main motive for having operational resilience in place. However, most, 79.5pc of unregulated firms that either have operational resilience in place or are in the process of developing it, stated that the main reason for doing so was for good practice.
As for those that don’t do operational resilience, some said they don’t do it as it’s is not a regulatory requirement; others stated on the lines that “business continuity is all that is needed”. The report authors pointed also to the lack of an industry-wide definition of operational resilience beyond the finance and banking sector. Having operational resilience at the heart of a company’s culture is essential to ensuring true adherence to best practice, according to the report. However, some continue to struggle to attract talented individuals with specific knowledge.
Those in the field consider operational resilience to have a broader customer and market focus, compared to business continuity and risk. However, some when responding to the BCI survey did not perceive significant differences in the day-to-day practices: 42pc of respondents stated that BC and operational resilience are synonymous within their organisations and 45.6pc said that there is an overlap between business continuity and operational resilience within their organisations, but the differences have not been clearly defined yet. The report found organisations continue to use concepts and tools related to operational resilience, and organisational resilience, interchangeably.
Overall accountability for operational resilience rests with members of the c-suite. However, business continuity- or resilience-related function managers tend to lead the daily responsibility, the report found.
Comments
Rachael Elliott, Head of Thought Leadership at the BCI said: “The survey results clearly show advances made in the uptake of operational resilience around the world; and it is interesting to see that it seems to be being perceived by many as a best practice that even non-regulated organisations should comply with. The positioning of operational resilience and business continuity remains fluid, and the BCI looks forward to facilitating the debate about this and helping to provide the clarity that the profession needs.”
And Brian Zawada from the report sponsors, Riskonnect added: “This important survey aligns to what I’m seeing and experiencing every day, which is the use of operational resilience concepts becoming more mainstream, both in and outside of financial services globally. Regardless of how an organisation or professional defines business continuity or operational resilience, it’s fantastic to see adoption and maturity increase, all benefiting the market, customer and organisation.”
You can download the report by registering at the BCI website.
