Debunking myth #5: Best-in-class BCM software exists

Sean well said: "If your process stinks manually, a tool isn't going to make it any better - garbage in, garbage out"! Being a vendor, we have ring-side view of how successful software is in helping BCM programs. Being around for over 15 years, we are tracking as many 'misses' as 'hits'

I have had really good discussions offline on this topic. Some calling for a TripAdvisor for risk management software and consulting as well as 360 grading - that is, vendors grading companies and sponsors. Some calling for better industry support from Gartner, Business Continuity Institute (BCI), and DRII. Others questioning the validity of it all. Everyone is looking for more transparency, accuracy, and a better process. Does anyone have recommendations?

Good point David Garland - design defines intent. When I look at software I can immediately define its intent. Sometimes I see data collection and reporting tool. Sometimes we see regulation and audit trails. Other times I see a consultant gone wild. Define your intent for software is a necessary first step. Also, 70% of the cost of a product is built in the design. It is not enough to look at requirements. We need to evaluate end user performance and sustainability (or maintenance) of the system. We recommend using three (3) frameworks when building or purchasing technology as well as implementation. The first methodology is Lootok's 5Ds?: 1. Discover 2. Design 3. Develop 4. Demonstrate 5. Deliver / Deploy We break down the Statement of Work (SOW) and the project plan into the 5Ds. You can use the model within an agile development process or for a specific build such as a crisis management module. The process greatly enhances met expectation, reduce scope creep and over promises, and follows proper design protocols. It has wonderful checks and balances built into the process to prevent a situation going off track. Too many times we see organizations end up in an endless and costly cycle of implement new ideas only to have the next person involved exponentially add more complexity. Too much times we see purchasers of software jump to their wish list without understanding time, costs, resources, or the end user experience. The second methodology is Lootok’s Experience Model ?: Rather than look at the software from your prospective, see it from the end user. We have a saying – a store cashier should be able to use it with minimum instruction. If you need a dedicated resource, dump it. The experience model allows you to experience the journey and feelings of the end user. 1. Personas 2. Experience and map events 3. Rolling thirty-six (36) rolling master schedule 4. Journey 5. Stories The third methodology is Mica Endsely’s Principles for User-Centered Design. 1. Organize technology around the user’s goals, task, and abilities 2. Technology should be organized around the way users process information and make decisions 3. Technology must keep the user in control and aware of the state of the system

Excellent piece, Sean Murphy. I will say that switching from one method/software to another (regardless of the vendor) does give one the opportunity to re-evaluate program methodology and processes. You'll likely not end up with a perfect solution, but worst case, it's a great time to take a hard look at your program.

Couldn't agree with you more Nina White, MBCP. To top it off, you will pay dearly for customization only to end-up where you started.