Factonomy’s Robin Craib gives his view on why business continuity management tools need to be built around a genuine relational database.
Across the business continuity management marketplace we see a variety of competing solutions that stakeout various concepts from across the BCM landscape. Many of these tools help to contribute to the progression of the industry through developing concepts from best practice and helping to reduce the administrative burden.
Most business continuity management tools use a genuine relational database (RDBMS) and, whilst all companies will be eager to compete on the specifics of their features, all are aspiring to provide extensive reporting features that unlock the carefully collected data for the business continuity management system that the solution is being used to manage. In many cases, these solutions represent a process of application development that has involved significant investment in time, money and expertise; whether as newly released solutions on the market or solutions that have iterated over time using market feedback. It’s fair to characterize most solutions as looking to capture and maintain real BCM data, competitors can argue over the extent to which this occurs, but most solutions are moving towards this approach with the solution representing the data warehouse for BCM inside the organization.
There is, however, a minority of business continuity management tools that have in recent years sprung up that have circumvented this process for application development and the related investments in time money and expertise. These solutions have piggy-backed on existing content management solutions (CMS) or document management solutions in the market. Typically the approach is to re-badge the tool to identify it as a business continuity management tool and to quickly take existing menus, options and interfaces and modify them to align to aspects of the BCM lifecycle.