Disaster Recovery Journal Summer 2026

Actionable reflection: Over the past 18 months, which con tinuity capabilities received sustained investment, which were deferred, and which were acknowledged as necessary but never resourced? Signals to watch: n Exercises funded only after major incidents n Investment concentrated on documentation rather than capability n Continuity work treated as discretionary or voluntary Organizations with a strong continuity posture treat delays as explicit risk accep tance decisions. Leadership understands that postponing a recovery exercise or dependency review increases uncertainty around outcomes. Weak posture emerges when delays occur quietly, without escala tion, accountability, or reassessment. ISO 22301 emphasizes operational con These patterns determine whether continuity and recovery will be coordinated and disciplined or improvised and fragile. “ What Is Getting Delayed? Every organization delays work. Business continuity resilience posture is revealed by which continuity activities are repeatedly postponed and how those delays are framed. Deferred business impact analyses, postponed exercises, incomplete dependency documenta tion, and delayed plan updates are often described as temporary. In practice, they represent ongoing risk decisions.

enced markedly different outcomes. Firms that had diversified suppliers, invested in alternate sourcing arrangements, and reg ularly exercised cross-functional response protocols were able to stabilize operations and resume production significantly faster than peers who relied on single-source sup pliers and untested recovery assumptions. In contrast, organizations whose continu ity efforts focused primarily on maintain ing plans, without sustained investment or operational rehearsal, encountered cas cading supply chain failures that extended downtime well beyond initial impact. The differentiator was not the existence of con tinuity documentation, but the presence of embedded investment, tested assumptions, and leadership attention before disruption occurred, a clear illustration of how resil ience posture shapes outcomes long before a crisis. Where Is the Investment? Investment decisions are among the clearest indicators of business continuity resilience posture. Organizations that con sistently prioritize growth, efficiency, and transformation initiatives while under funding continuity capabilities implicitly assume disruptions will be rare, manage able, or absorbed elsewhere. That assump tion is often revealed only when recovery objectives are missed. A strong continuity posture is reflected in sustained investment across the con tinuity lifecycle. This includes business impact analysis refreshes, dependency mapping, alternate work strategies, crisis coordination capabilities, recovery test ing, and plan maintenance. Importantly, it also includes funding for time, allowing operational leaders and staff to partici pate meaningfully in exercises, validation activities, and post-incident reviews. From a NIST CSF 2.0 perspective, balanced investment supports Govern, Respond, and Recover outcomes by ensur ing continuity capabilities are not isolated from enterprise risk management. From an ISO 22301 perspective, it demonstrates leadership commitment to maintaining and improving the business continuity management system.

trol and continual improvement. Persistent delays without review undermine both. NIST CSF 2.0 similarly reinforces the importance of risk-informed prioritization across preparedness and recovery activi ties. Actionable reflection: Which continuity activities have been delayed more than once, and where has risk acceptance been explicitly docu mented versus assumed? Signals to watch: n “Next quarter” becoming the default response for continuity work n Known single points of failure remaining unresolved year after year n No formal mechanism to escalate deferred continuity activities Are Assumptions Tested? Business continuity strategies rely on assumptions about staff availability, alter nate facilities, vendor support, data acces sibility, and decision authority during disruptions. A strong resilience posture is characterized by a deliberate effort to surface and test these assumptions before they are tested by real events. Tabletop exercises, functional exer cises, and simulations serve a purpose beyond compliance. They reveal coor dination gaps, conflicting priorities, and unrealistic expectations. Organizations that avoid testing often mistake plan com pletion for readiness and familiarity for capability. From a NIST CSF 2.0 standpoint, assumption testing strengthens Respond and Recover outcomes by validating coor dination and execution under realistic con ditions. From an ISO 22301 standpoint, it supports exercising, performance evalua tion, and improvement requirements. Actionable reflection: When was the last time continu ity assumptions were tested end-to-end, including people, processes, facilities, technology, and third-party dependencies? Signals to watch: n Exercises that stop at discussion rather than execution “

DISASTER RECOVERY JOURNAL | SUMMER 2026 19