Information technology disaster recovery plan ppt,bad weather survival kit,interesting information about blizzards - For Begninners

The Information Technology Disaster Resource Center (ITDRC) was founded in 2008 to provide communities with the necessary resources to continue operations and recover their technology infrastructure from disaster.
The concept was introduced in 2001 following the World Trade Center disaster in NYC, and proposed to congress by Sen. Building upon the original NETGuard framework, ITDRC was established as a nationwide 501(c)(3) non-profit organization; and is currently comprised of hundreds of volunteer professionals with expertise in many technology disciplines.
In addition to providing public education to help build disaster resilient communities, our vision is to serve as a vendor neutral clearinghouse for in-kind technology resources and catalyst for connecting NGOs with communities in crisis.
To prepare and assist Communities with Technology Continuity and Recovery of Information Systems during times of disaster. Field Disaster Response Teams, supported by remote technology volunteers, deploy to disaster stricken areas to provide temporary workspace, connectivity, voice, video, and data technology assets, and support to aid in the relief efforts. Members of the ITDRC collaborate with both Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations to improve the community response to disaster. Information and Communications Technology is a single component of a more comprehensive disaster response, business continuity, and disaster recovery plan.
Connect with us on your favorite social media site at the top right under our 'Social' tab. If you'd like to find out more about our mission, partner with us, or how you can help a community near you, please fill out this form and we'll get in touch with you. Our Team is comprised of service oriented technology professionals from many disciplines, who volunteer and work together to implement solutions that help communities continue operations and successfully recover from a disaster. Australian organisations are taking their information technology disaster recovery seriously.
This is the first information technology disaster recovery survey (the Survey) that Certitude has conducted.
The majority of the total IT outages reported inthe past two years were experienced byrespondents who spent around 1% of their ITbudget on disaster recovery. The majority of respondents described thematurity of their disaster recovery as ‘repeatable,but intuitive’, or ‘defined’.
Most respondents (over 50%) have disasterrecovery mostly or completely embedded into their IT Service Continuity, ICT Infrastructure,Availability, Change, Incident, Security andFinancial Management processes.Few (around 44%) have disaster recovery embeddedinto their Project Management processes.
The majority of respondents identify threatsto IT service continuity by using disasterrecovery specific risk assessments, broaderIT risk assessments, or enterprise-wide riskassessments.Few (less than 30%) used information recordedby their incident and problem managementprocesses to identify threats. Most respondents identify and evaluate severalkey controls that can protect against unplannedsystem outages.
Nearly half of the respondents (47.06%) hadexperienced a major and unplanned systemdisruption in the past two years.
Encouragingly, most respondents determinetheir disaster recovery requirements withrepresentation from users through a BusinessImpact Analysis (BIA). Despite a high participation of users in thedetermination of disaster recovery requirements,overall user expectations appear to be poorlymanaged.
Most respondents (approximately 70%) havesome form of disaster recovery architecture,however only around 75% of these make goodgood use of it. Around 6% of respondents said that they havenever reviewed or updated their disasterrecovery documentation.
Surprisingly, about 47% of respondents said thatthey have never conducted disaster recovery training. BUDGET Respondents spend around DR Budget (% of IT) 3% of their IT budget on disaster recovery. MATURITY Higher levels of disaster Maturity recovery maturity can reduce system disruption.


PROCESS INTEGRATION Disaster recovery is poorly Where DR is Embedded embedded into project and service level management, As well as service desk processes. KEY CONTROLS The management of service levels and 3rd-party service providers is being missed to control disaster recovery Manage Changes Manage Physical risk.
RECOVERY REQUIREMENTS Users are involved in RTO Considerations determining disaster recovery requirements. EXPECTATIONS & IMPACT The most difficult area of Expectation Management harm to quantify, reputation, is of the greatest concern.
DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY Technologies in production Use of DR Architecture are well utilised for recovery capability. DOCUMENTATION Plans are often out of date, and supporting Documentation Status documentation is often unidentified or unavailable. TRAINING Many respondents use disaster recovery testing as Training Frequency the primary method of training.
TESTING Few (34%) of respondents Testing Frequency have their recovery test independently evaluated and reported. We harness the collective resources of the technology community to provide no cost Information, Communications, and Technology (ICT) resources; as well as technical recovery assistance to help communities continue operations in times of disaster. We fulfill this mission through education, planning, and disaster response; by a dedicated team of volunteer Technology Professionals and Corporate Partners. We provide informational resources and technical guidance to assist communities, non-profit organizations, and small businesses prepare for a disaster. Our Team of Technology Specialists have extensive experience in technology continuity, and can rapidly deploy to recover a critical infrastructure. These engagements introduce attendees to our organizational capabilities, and provide a forum to share ideas and challenges commonly encountered in community recovery.
However, with many organisations currently focused on cost reduction, unrealised opportunities exist to achieve disaster recovery objectives more economically. In the CERTITUDE 2012 Information Technology Disaster Recovery Survey report released on the 8th of November, Eric Keser, a director and principal consultant with CERTITUDE Technology Risk Services, said, “Australian organisations spend about three percent of their annual IT budget on disaster recovery.
However, asubstantial number (around 12%) of the totaloutages reported were experienced byrespondents who spent a relatively largeproportion of their IT budget (more than 10%) ondisaster recovery.Of the respondents with an annual IT budgetof less than or equal to $100,000, close to 0% ofthe annual IT budget was spent on disasterrecovery.
Around 2.5% of respondents described the maturity of theirdisaster recovery as ‘optimised’.
Some of the changes to be awareof include:a) A regulated institution cannot just perform a BIA for critical business operations. This represents a missed opportunity to analysepast threats and then to improve risk mitigationactivities in order to prevent future reoccurrence.
Of these,most experienced an average outage of one tofive hours, and a longest outage of less than12 hours (half a day).
Also, most respondentsconsider important factors, such as work-arounds,and system dependencies, when determiningRecovery Time Objectives and Recovery PointObjectives. Over half the respondents thoughtthat they partially managed unrealistic recoveryexpectations, if at all.Failing to manage unrealistic expectations maylead to dissatisfied users, and unnecessaryexpenditure on disaster recovery implementationand maintenance. Around 12% of respondents eitherhad no disaster recovery architecture, or were intending to develop one.Despite the availability of cloud services,most respondents do not use cloud-basedbackup services. In contrast, about 38%of respondents review or update theirdocumentation at least once every year.
Environment ?Few evaluate important DR controls such as managing performance, capacity Manage Performance Manage Problems and problems & Capacity ?Even fewer recognise the importance of managing service levels, and third-party providers.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 authorized the creation of a National Emergency Technology Corps of volunteers known as NETGuard, under the Citizen Corps umbrella. However, spending well above the average on disaster recovery does not necessarily provide greater protection against system outages.”.


The Survey specifically focused on the disaster recovery practices of Australian organisations, and therefore presents findings that are most relevant to the Australian market. For example, embedding disaster recovery considerationsand sign-off in change requests, may reduce thepossibility that a production change will reducethe disaster recovery capability. However, nearly half the respondents had notadequately considered the re-entry and processingof lost data, and the clearing of any work backlog. It can also diminish theimportance of user responsibilities in minimisingthe harm caused by system disruption (e.g.
Somerespondents also review or update their disasterrecovery documentation as a continuous part oftheir change management process, either bi-monthly, or when specified by their customers.The majority of respondents (around 94%) use generic word processing tools to document theirdisaster recovery plans and associateddocumentation. Some of the Survey respondents spend more than ten percent of their annual IT budget on disaster recovery. In August and September 2012, respondents completed the online Survey which asked a number of questions concerning Information Technology Disaster Recovery (DR) in their organisation.The results of the Survey indicate that, broadly, disaster recovery in Australian organisations is well managed.
Doing this mayalso prevent a new system being commissionedwithout an established disaster recovery solution.
These respondents mayexperience unnecessary harm, due to not identifying potential causes of disruption, or not escalating minor issues appropriately before theycause a disruption.The identification and validation of key controlscan often significantly, and cost effectively, reducethe likelihood and consequences of systemdisruption. These could fairly be regarded as ‘self-inflicted’ as theyrelate to failures in change management, capacityplanning, and IT environmental management (see red coloured root causes on the chart below).
This may indicate that while users were involved inthe determination of requirements, theirengagement may have been inadequate. Leveraging technologies that already exist in anorganisation’s production environment canprovide improved and cost effective recoverycapability. Around half of the respondentsalso use generic systems such as their intranetsand document management systems to publishand maintain their documentation.Cloud based services have not gained popularity,with no respondent reporting using services tostore and disseminate disaster recoverydocumentation .
However, with many organisations currently focused on cost reduction, opportunities exist that could enable organisations to achieve their disaster recovery objectives more economically. They do not own, andtherefore have no easy access to, other suitablerecovery locations, and the cost to subscribe tothird-party recovery facilities may be prohibitivefor these organisations.In contrast, respondents who have a regionalpresence appear to be taking full advantage oftheir geographical diversity by recovering tofacilities they own in other locations. Approximately 72%stated that their organisation’s reputationwould be either completely or mostly harmedif an unplanned system disruption occurred.The recognition that reputational damage issignificant to many organisations presents a smallproblem in building a business case for disasterrecovery.
Of all the technologies presented inthe survey, the majority of respondents (80% ormore) have made use of technologies that alreadyexist in their production environments. Unlike other typical areas of harm,reputational damage is the most difficult to actually measure, and quantify.Reputational harm was closely followed by theoperational and financial impacts that couldcause the most harm to the respondents’organisations. Keser said, “This highlights the opportunity, at nominal cost, to reduce such causes by improving the integration of disaster recovery into existing service level and third-party management processes.”.
These causes often relate to failures in change management, capacity planning, and IT environmental management. Such processes are all usually within the organisation’s direct control, and therefore should not be costly to improve. Yet as few as thirty percent of respondents identify and evaluate the performance of these key disaster recovery controls. About knowing how much recovery capability is needed, Keser said, “Most respondents involve their users in the determination of disaster recovery requirements.



Fema certification
Contingency plan for disaster management


Comments to “Information technology disaster recovery plan ppt”

  1. Kisia writes:
    Even for the authorities it's emitted by wifi, cell phones.
  2. Anar_sixaliyev writes:
    Schumer has been fighting extended and hard.
  3. Ayka012 writes:
    Method to investigate the partnership between not touch every emergency products such as flashlights, blankets, dry.
  4. 4356 writes:
    If you are a asset to use them reduce out an location for lighter.