ABSTRACT
There is a continuing indication of a disconnect between executive management’s perceptions of continuity planning (CP) objectives and the manner in which they measure its value. Traditionally, CP effectiveness was measured in terms of a pass/fail grade on a mainframe recovery test, or on the perceived benefits of backup/recovery sites and redundant telecommunications weighed against the expense for these capabilities. The trouble with these types of metrics is that they only measure CP direct costs, or indirect perceptions as to whether a test was effectively executed. These metrics do not indicate whether a test validates the appropriate infrastructure elements or even whether it is thorough enough to test a component until it fails, thereby extending the reach and usefulness of the test scenario.
