Question: Is the business continuity program periodically reviewed and improved based on metrics, incidents, and audits?
Why This Matters
Review cycles maintain program relevance and embed resilience as a continuous process rather than a one-time project.
Maturity
No formal review or improvement cycle.
BCM reviewed reactively after incidents.
Annual review schedule established.
Metrics and audit findings analyzed systematically.
Cross-functional reviews and external benchmarking.
Continuous maturity tracking with executive dashboards.
How to Level Up
| From → To | Actions | |—|—| | 0 → 1 |Hold ad hoc review after major incidents. | | 1 → 2 |Define annual BCM review process. | | 2 → 3 |Integrate KPI and audit feedback. | | 3 → 4 |Include multi-departmental participation. | | 4 → 5 |Implement continuous improvement dashboard. |
Enablers
- People: BCM Committee, Risk, Audit
- Process: Measure → Review → Plan → Improve
- Technology: GRC or BCM tool, analytics
Evidence
- Review meeting minutes
- Action plan and status
- Updated policy and metrics
KPIs
- Number of improvement actions closed
- Program maturity score trend
- Frequency of cross-functional reviews
Low-Cost / Open-Source Options (MSME)
| Purpose | Tool | Notes | |—|—|—| | Tracking | Airtable | Review action log | | Analytics | Metabase | Maturity dashboard | | Scheduling | Google Calendar | Review alerts |
Common Pitfalls
- Reviews become checklist exercises
- Metrics not linked to real improvements
- Missing top management involvement
Compliance Mapping
| Standard | Clauses / Notes | |—|—| | ISO 22301 | 9.3 / 10.2 | | ISO 27001 | 9.3 / 10.2 | | NIST CSF 2.0 | GV.MA / RS.MI | | NIRMATA Mapping | BC-Q12 ensures continual improvement of continuity capability. |