Introduction

Testing of the Organization’s Recovery Plan

According to Krocker (2012), disaster managers tend to relax after creating a Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP). Organizations consider that the newly implemented procedures cover everything. Therefore, they sit back in a comfortable manner with the high hopes that these emergency procedures will protect them. However, this should not be the case. Crump (2013) asserts that “disaster recovery (DR) has become tougher due to ever-changing virtual environments” (p.10). He emphasizes the need for the testing of the disaster plan (Crump, 2013). In addition to the above, such plans should work in line with existing DR monitoring tools. Several reasons support the need for this kind of testing.

ORDER A SIMILAR PAPER HERE

Firstly, there is an increased number of disasters that organizations face. It is the responsibility of every manager to ensure that recovery efforts succeed. In this regard, testing of the plans is one of the most practical solutions. Firstly, it is an economical approach. Testing exposes the loopholes that exist in the current system. Such loopholes are then corrected before they can develop into a tragedy. Besides, testing reduces downtime in the event of a disaster because it becomes easy to identify and fix a problem during the testing process. Thus, any downtime that could have occurred is eradicated. It also enhances stakeholder confidence in the existing processes. Managers may fear that the systems might not perform as expected during disasters, hence the need for testing. Finally, it is imperative to note that a DR plan is unworthy unless it is tested. Testing gives value to all the plans managers may seek to implement. In this regard, simulation testing is the best option because it does not result in the interruption of normal organizational operations. Moreover, it promotes thorough testing of hardware, software, procedures, and other processes.

Change Control

A change control process is part of the disaster recovery plan. Change control ensures that the variations that occur in the environment are reflected in the disaster recovery plan. This is a clear indication that the change control must be implemented soon after a plan is drafted. Crump (2013) asserts that the process of change takes place so rapidly that control mechanisms are not able to work at the same speed. Thus, this is an indication that although numerous changes occur, they must be adhered to strictly, failing which a letdown of the plans will occur.

There are four core disaster recovery monitoring must-haves. Firstly, environmental awareness is of profound importance. Existing monitoring tools should be in positions to detect the changes in the surrounding areas. This means that they should not be limited to application. As a result, the remarkable changes are reported with immediacy. The second is hardware and software independence. The disaster recovery plan works with various hardware and programs in efforts to investigate discrepancies. Thirdly, the monitoring tools should not be limited to moving data. Solutions should be complemented instead of bringing about unhealthy competition. Finally, working from a knowledge base is superficial. The tools should develop the best solutions in disaster recovery plan loopholes. As such, change control is imperative. For instance, during testing, various configuration changes that occur in quick succession may be noticed. As a result, change control processes play a substantial role in disaster recovery plans.

Lessons Learned

Lessons learned debriefing plays a crucial role after a disaster. Firstly, it is an open forum in which opportunities for improvement are discovered. These opportunities can be used to improve the system or plans. Secondly, debriefingenables the project team to identify weaknesses and strengths. The weaknesses are worked on to ensure the success of the disaster recovery plan in the future. On the other hand, the strengths are maximized to perfect results. Documenting the lessons learned is imperative for my organization since it is the basis upon which recommended suggestions are made. These suggestions enable others who hope to undertake related projects in the future be aware and conversant with recent developments. White and Cohan (2005) assert that the use of lessons learned reflects an organization’s commitment to continuous improvement in terms of managing various activities adaptively. Therefore, organizations hoping for continuous success should emphasize on it.

Moreover, lessons learned constitute an effective way of communicating the knowledge acquired in terms of working processes and planning. As a result, this valuable information is incorporated into the daily operations of an organization. Finally, my organization should be conversant with the ideal procedure for disseminating the lessons learned, the first of which is to define the lessons learned in a project. Secondly, the lessons learned should be documented. The third step is to review them for practicability. Lastly, the resulting knowledge is disseminated for future use.

To conclude, it is imperative that an organization keeps a record of the lessons learned from every disaster. Such documents play a vital role in the success of the organization. Additionally, it ensures that the organization improves by critically analyzing its strengths and weaknesses. The organization can use such acquired knowledge in change planning and working processes.

References

Crump. G. (2013). Search Disaster Recovery. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from http://searchdisasterrecovery.techtarget.com//

Krocker, W.(2012). Disaster Recovery Plan Testing, Cycle the Plan – Plan the Cycle. SANS Institute InfoSec Reading Room.

White, M. & Cohan, A. (2005). A Guide to Capturing Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: Naval Research Laboratory, Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence.

Disaster Recovery Plans