• silicon.com
• Technology
• Hardware

By Sally Watson, 22 January 2001 17:32

NEWS The Business Continuity Awareness Week claims the £500m lost by UK businesses during the autumn floods - and the potentially even larger expense of the rail network chaos - could have been significantly reduced with a little forward thinking. John Sharp, CEO of the Business Continuity Institute, said: "We're very aware that industry and commerce hasn't taken [business continuity] fully on board." The group is encouraging businesses to identify potential risks - however unlikely - and set up alternative processes to avoid potential disruption. A survey for the Institute found managers were more wary of the chaos caused by IT failure than of fire, skills shortage, property damage or a flawed corporate reputation. Sharp said: "Everybody now has a PC on their desk and as soon as it goes down you can't work." However, Sharp warned many companies focus too narrowly on hardware or software without identifying its wider place in the corporate process. Rod Ratsma, director of the Safetynet Consulting group at data recovery specialist Guardian IT, agrees. He said: "People are always worried about machines going wrong, but it's important to recognise IT is part of the infrastructure - like people, premises and pencils." Business Continuity Awareness Week is aiming its sights squarely at board directors. Sharp said: "When a company collapses it's no good pointing the finger at somebody else. We've seen plenty of senior executives lose their jobs by failing to manage disasters correctly." It's a message many IT companies will take to heart, particularly after the recent Californian blackout that left Silicon Valley executives in the dark. And the introduction of new regulations like the London Stock Exchange's Turnbull Report could leave company directors legally responsible for losses in the most serious cases. Ratsma concluded: "You've got to weigh up the cost of the risk against the cost of the solution. Organisations have to decide for themselves whether the risk justifies the cost of putting protection into place."