Authors: Theresa A. Kirchner Kiran Karande Edward P. Markowski Old Dominion University Norfolk, VA, USA March 17, 2006 Per...
What is business continuity ? <ul><li>It  provides protection for the mission, vision, and values of the organization and ...
Related definitions <ul><li>Business Continuity Planning (BCP) </li></ul><ul><li>is a process of developing advance arrang...
Related definitions  (cont) <ul><li>Crisis Management  is an approach that: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>recognizes the social an...
Example – Business Continuity Planning <ul><li>Salomon Smith Barney (part of Citigroup) in the context of the 9-11 disaste...
Practical Examples <ul><li>Network outage </li></ul><ul><li>“ Sick building” </li></ul><ul><li>Earthquake / fire / flood /...
Business Continuity – Historical Perspective
Literature Review <ul><li>Analysis of recent national and international surveys to develop insights about the current stat...
Literature Review  (cont) <ul><li>Empirical analysis of the impact of computer disasters on information management using s...
Literature Review  (cont) <ul><li>Examination of corporate plans, strategies, and short-term activities potentially needed...
Literature Review  (cont) <ul><li>A detailed business-oriented overview of the business continuity planning process </li><...
Why is the research relevant ? <ul><li>Examples: </li></ul><ul><li>The U.S. experienced 58 weather-related disasters betwe...
Why is the research relevant ?  (cont) <ul><li>Examples: </li></ul><ul><li>More than 75% of organizations worldwide experi...
Cost of Downtime Revenue <ul><li>Direct loss </li></ul><ul><li>Compensatory payments </li></ul><ul><li>Lost future revenue...
Why is the research relevant ?  (cont) <ul><li>Marketing perspective </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Business Continuity is a multi-...
Why is the research relevant ?  (cont) <ul><li>Managerial perspective </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In a 24x7 on-line world, manag...
Why is the research relevant ?  (cont) <ul><li>Academic perspective </li></ul><ul><ul><li>There is very little theoretical...
<ul><li>Proposed Construct: </li></ul><ul><li>Perceived Organizational Business Continuity Readiness </li></ul><ul><li>Rel...
 
<ul><li>The Research Process </li></ul><ul><li>Step 1: Defined the concept of perceived organizational  business continuit...
Specified the Domain of the Construct <ul><li>Conducted a literature search. </li></ul><ul><li>Developed a delineated defi...
Generated the Initial Sample of Items <ul><li>Reviewed prior literature on the topic. </li></ul><ul><li>Examined business ...
Generated the Initial Sample of Items  (cont.) <ul><li>Reviewed Disaster Recovery Institute International’s “ Professional...
Generated the Initial Sample of Items  (cont.) <ul><li>Conducted an on-online focus group of 57 Master Certified Business ...
Generated the Initial Sample of Items  (cont.) <ul><li>Developed initial item sample  characteristics:  ( cont.) </li></ul...
Generated the initial sample of items  (cont.) <ul><li>Developed initial item sample characteristics: </li></ul><ul><ul><u...
Refined the Sample of Items <ul><li>Developed initial item sample characteristics: </li></ul><ul><li>4 additional question...
Refined the Sample of Items  (cont.) <ul><li>Implemented the on-line version of the questionnaire to the ODU Inquisite ser...
Refined the Sample of Items  (cont.) <ul><li>Conducted a pre-test using input from 5 experts (practitioner and consultant)...
Collected Data – Round 1 <ul><li>Survey population:  Executives, managers, employees, and vendors with a specific interest...
Collected Data – Round 1  (cont.) <ul><li>Posted the survey announcement and link on the Disaster Recovery Journal site. <...
Collected Data – Round 1  (cont.) <ul><li>Monitored the DRJ survey site daily. </li></ul><ul><li>Received daily status rep...
Lessons Learned – On-line Surveys <ul><li>Build a detailed plan with completion dates; allow enough time for each step of ...
Lessons Learned – On-Line Surveys   (cont.) <ul><li>Inquisite is an excellent survey tool but currently has some drawbacks...
Purified the Measure <ul><li>Analyzed the results of the initial data, using: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>-  Reliability analysi...
Survey 1 Results Factor Analysis / Reliability Results
Proposed Antecedents of Perceived Organizational Business Continuity Readiness
Collected Data – Round 2 <ul><li>Used a paper survey distributed in the registration packages of the 03/2005 Disaster Reco...
Survey 2 Results –  Final 11-Item Scale Factor Analysis / Reliability Results
Confirmatory Factor Analysis – SEM (AMOS) Diagram – Survey 1 Data
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (AMOS) – Data from Survey 1
Norms – Survey 1 & 2 Data  (n = 584)
Next Steps <ul><li>Multigroup analysis (AMOS), using the 2 groups of data collected from the 2 surveys, to determine wheth...
Managerial & Research Implications <ul><li>Caveat:  It’s perceived, not actual. </li></ul><ul><li>First study of its type ...
Opportunities for Future Research <ul><li>Conduct testing within individual organizations </li></ul><ul><li>Develop antece...
Questions and  Comments . . .
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

ITE Presentation

368 views
268 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
368
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Cisco Systems Tampa airport Norfolk gas line explosion
  • Conclusion: E-commerce drives increased requirements for continuous availability and shorter recovery times and points. Source: Gartner Research
  • Pre-test – test of the questionnaire to assess how it performs under actual conditions of data collection. Assessed responses Asked pre-testers to mentally rate each question from 1-5 in terms of applicability and representation (5 was high) and to report any questions that they rated below at 3 or lower. The pre-testers reported no questions with a rating of 3 or lower.
  • Certified Business Continuity Professionals (CBCP, MBCP) DRJ Editorial Advisory Board
  • Pre-test – test of the questionnaire to assess how it performs under actual conditions of data collection. Assessed responses Asked pre-testers to mentally rate each question from 1-5 in terms of applicability and representation (5 was high) and to report any questions that they rated below at 3 or lower. The pre-testers reported no questions with a rating of 3 or lower.
  • Pre-test – test of the questionnaire to assess how it performs under actual conditions of data collection. Assessed responses Asked pre-testers to mentally rate each question from 1-5 in terms of applicability and representation (5 was high) and to report any questions that they rated below at 3 or lower. The pre-testers reported no questions with a rating of 3 or lower.
  • ITE Presentation

    1. 1. Authors: Theresa A. Kirchner Kiran Karande Edward P. Markowski Old Dominion University Norfolk, VA, USA March 17, 2006 Perceived Organizational Business Continuity Readiness: Scale Development and Validation
    2. 2. What is business continuity ? <ul><li>It provides protection for the mission, vision, and values of the organization and mitigates the effects of disasters or severe disruptions on that mission, vision, and value set. (DRII / DRJ Glossary) </li></ul><ul><li>It facilitates continued performance of essential business functions / operations and the ongoing protection of vital company assets. (BCI Glossary) </li></ul><ul><li>It includes all measures and technologies that an organization implements to combat any potential significant disruption to its normal operations, competitive advantage, and ability to prove regulatory compliance. (Price) </li></ul><ul><li>It allows organizations to reasonably strive for continuous availability of processes, systems, and networks. (IBM Global Services) </li></ul>
    3. 3. Related definitions <ul><li>Business Continuity Planning (BCP) </li></ul><ul><li>is a process of developing advance arrangements and procedures that enable an organization to respond to an event in such a manner that critical business functions continue with planned levels of interruption or essential change. (Disaster Recovery Institute / Disaster Recovery Journal Glossary 2004) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rooted in a crisis management approach (Shrivastave 1987, Smith 1990, Pauchant and Mitroff 1992) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Broader in scope than more traditional “disaster recovery” approaches, which emphasize after-the-fact recovery of information technology hardware / software systems (Doswell 2000) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focuses on business processes and assets (Elliott et al. 2002) </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Related definitions (cont) <ul><li>Crisis Management is an approach that: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>recognizes the social and technical characteristics of business interruptions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>emphasizes the contribution that managers and employees make to the resolution of interruptions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>assumes that managers may build resilience into business interruptions through processes and changes to operating norms and practices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>assumes that organizations themselves may play a major role in ‘incubating the potential for failure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>recognizes that, if managed properly, interruptions do not inevitably result in crises </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>acknowledges the impact, potential or realized, of interruptions upon a wide range of stakeholders </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> (Elliott et al. 2002) </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Example – Business Continuity Planning <ul><li>Salomon Smith Barney (part of Citigroup) in the context of the 9-11 disaster: </li></ul><ul><li>A pre-established virtual command center immediately began meeting to provide managerial direction. </li></ul><ul><li>SSB lost equipment in NY; immediately switched to an alternate hot site in NJ already staffed with employees. </li></ul><ul><li>2,000 employees were displaced due to the collapse at Seven World Trade Center. Based on predefined requirements, business continuity plans, and previous exercises, all employees were relocated to temporary work facilities and/or permanent locations. </li></ul><ul><li>Post-9/11 focus is on data replication, recovery of non-critical functions, plan currency, and crisis management planning (evacuation, communication). </li></ul>
    6. 6. Practical Examples <ul><li>Network outage </li></ul><ul><li>“ Sick building” </li></ul><ul><li>Earthquake / fire / flood / hurricane / snowstorm </li></ul><ul><li>WTO / World Bank protest situation </li></ul><ul><li>Election-year party convention </li></ul><ul><li>Major IT or operational system implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Hacker / intruder situation </li></ul><ul><li>Violence in the workplace </li></ul><ul><li>Terrorist attack (or threat) </li></ul><ul><li>Gas line explosion </li></ul>
    7. 7. Business Continuity – Historical Perspective
    8. 8. Literature Review <ul><li>Analysis of recent national and international surveys to develop insights about the current status of business continuity and mitigation of major business interruptions </li></ul><ul><li>Cerullo and Cerullo (2004), “Business Continuity Planning: A Comprehensive Approach” </li></ul><ul><li>Examination of business continuity in the post-9/11 environment; notes that 85% of U.S. critical infrastructure is owned and controlled by non-governmental organizations </li></ul><ul><li>Bovin et al. (2004), “Leading After 9/11” </li></ul><ul><li>Review of results of a business continuity oriented survey of 461 managers at U.K. businesses </li></ul><ul><li>Veysey (2004), “Insurers called influential in forming continuity plans” </li></ul>
    9. 9. Literature Review (cont) <ul><li>Empirical analysis of the impact of computer disasters on information management using sample data from 274 executives </li></ul><ul><li>Kundu (2004), “Impact of computer disasters on information management: a study” </li></ul><ul><li>Outline of the expanding scope of business continuity to include all measures and technologies that an organization implements to combat any significant disruption to its normal operations, competitive advantage, and ability to prove regulatory compliance </li></ul><ul><li>Price (2004), “The New Scope of Business Continuity” </li></ul><ul><li>Examination of the current and evolving status of business continuity in corporations </li></ul><ul><li>Quinn (2004), “Moving Business Continuity Into the Corporate Mainstream” </li></ul>
    10. 10. Literature Review (cont) <ul><li>Examination of corporate plans, strategies, and short-term activities potentially needed to incorporate the ramifications of 9/11 events </li></ul><ul><li>Kennedy et al. (2003), “Scenario planning after 9/11: Managing the impact of a catastrophic event” </li></ul><ul><li>An academic overview of the evolving discipline of business continuity </li></ul><ul><li>Elliott, Swartz, and Herbane (2002), “Business Continuity Management: A Crisis Management Approach” </li></ul><ul><li>Presentation of a multidisciplinary approach to crisis management research, using psychological, social-political, and technological-structural research perspectives </li></ul><ul><li>Pearson and Clair (1998), “Reframing Crisis Management” </li></ul>
    11. 11. Literature Review (cont) <ul><li>A detailed business-oriented overview of the business continuity planning process </li></ul><ul><li>Strohl Systems (1995), “The Business Continuity Planning Guide” </li></ul><ul><li>Leading industry publications: </li></ul><ul><li>Disaster Recovery Journal </li></ul><ul><li>Continuity Insights </li></ul><ul><li>Business Continuity Management </li></ul><ul><li>Risk Management </li></ul><ul><li>Non-academic proprietary research: </li></ul><ul><li>Gartner Group </li></ul><ul><li>Meta Group </li></ul><ul><li>Major Business Continuity Vendors </li></ul>
    12. 12. Why is the research relevant ? <ul><li>Examples: </li></ul><ul><li>The U.S. experienced 58 weather-related disasters between 1980 and 2003, with normalized damages that exceeded $1 billion each and totaled $349 billion (NOAA 2004) </li></ul><ul><li>43% of firms hit by severe crises never reopen. Another 29% fail within two years. (Datapro Research Company 1990) </li></ul><ul><li>e.g. Of all business damaged by Hurricane Andrew in 1992, 80% of those lacking a business continuity plan failed within 2 years of the storm. (FEMA http://www.fema.gov/library/lib01.htm ) </li></ul>
    13. 13. Why is the research relevant ? (cont) <ul><li>Examples: </li></ul><ul><li>More than 75% of organizations worldwide experienced unexpected unavailability of critical business systems in 2002. (Ernst & Young Global Information Security 2002 Survey) </li></ul><ul><li>Downtime costs $1300 per minute on average. (Oracle) </li></ul><ul><li>Downtime costs major Internet players an estimated $8000 per hour. (Forrester Research) </li></ul><ul><li>Typical medium-sized business downtime costs average $78,000 per hour; these sites typically lose more than $1 million annually due to downtime. (IDC) </li></ul>
    14. 14. Cost of Downtime Revenue <ul><li>Direct loss </li></ul><ul><li>Compensatory payments </li></ul><ul><li>Lost future revenues </li></ul><ul><li>Billing losses </li></ul><ul><li>Investment losses </li></ul>Productivity <ul><li>Number of employees impacted X hours out X burdened hourly rate </li></ul>Damaged Reputation <ul><li>Customers </li></ul><ul><li>Suppliers </li></ul><ul><li>Financial markets </li></ul><ul><li>Banks </li></ul><ul><li>Business partners </li></ul><ul><li>Etc. </li></ul>Financial Performance <ul><li>Revenue recognition </li></ul><ul><li>Cash flow </li></ul><ul><li>Lost discounts (A/P) </li></ul><ul><li>Payment guarantees </li></ul><ul><li>Credit rating </li></ul><ul><li>Stock price </li></ul>Other Expenses Temporary employees, equipment rental, overtime costs, extra shipping costs, travel expenses, opportunity costs, etc. Copyright © 2001
    15. 15. Why is the research relevant ? (cont) <ul><li>Marketing perspective </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Business Continuity is a multi-billion-dollar industry. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Major Business Continuity vendors are interested in research to identify product and service opportunities, increase sales, and maintain profitable customer relationships. (e.g. IBM, HP, AT&T, Strohl Systems, SunGard) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant non-academic work is done by research organizations. (e.g. Gartner Group, Meta Group) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Academic work, available to both business continuity vendors and customers, has the potential to fill a marketing information void for those who cannot afford research organization prices. </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Why is the research relevant ? (cont) <ul><li>Managerial perspective </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In a 24x7 on-line world, managers must approximate 100% uptime and accessibility or customers will go elsewhere. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ The wonder of the Web is that the customer knows about problems at the same time that you do. There’s no camouflage.” - Senior VP of electronic brokerage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A business continuity readiness scale can provide an operational tool for managers to measure and assess readiness at both a firm level and, potentially, an industry level. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A business continuity readiness scale can provide information for a scorecard useful for updating Boards of Directors, internal and external auditors, industry analysts, investors, and other stakeholders. </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Why is the research relevant ? (cont) <ul><li>Academic perspective </li></ul><ul><ul><li>There is very little theoretical and empirical research in the literature. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>While university classes and academic degrees are beginning to be awarded in the areas of business continuity / disaster recovery / emergency response, the coursework and textbooks are based on non-academic research and case studies. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There are no academic constructs / scales for organizational business continuity readiness and its antecedents. </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. <ul><li>Proposed Construct: </li></ul><ul><li>Perceived Organizational Business Continuity Readiness </li></ul><ul><li>Related Research Questions: </li></ul><ul><li>How is perceived organizational business continuity readiness measured? </li></ul><ul><li>What factors (antecedents) contribute to perceived organizational business continuity readiness? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the consequences of organizational business continuity readiness? </li></ul>How This Research Addresses the Gap
    19. 20. <ul><li>The Research Process </li></ul><ul><li>Step 1: Defined the concept of perceived organizational business continuity readiness. </li></ul><ul><li>Step 2: Generated a broad list of 56 questionnaire items to measure the concept based on review of business / academic literature and qualitative research. </li></ul><ul><li>Step 3: Collected data – Survey # 1. </li></ul><ul><li>Step 4: Reduced the number of questionnaire items to 23, based on reliability and factor analysis of data from Survey # 1. </li></ul><ul><li>Step 5: Collected additional data for the reduced number of questionnaire items – Survey # 2. </li></ul><ul><li>Step 6: Reduced the number of survey items further, to 11, based on reliability analysis and factor analysis of data from Survey # 2. Identified 4 related categories (factors) into which those questionnaire items fall. </li></ul><ul><li>Step 7: Confirmed the 11-item, 4-factor structure developed in Step 6 (which used data from Survey # 2) with data from Survey # 1. </li></ul><ul><li>Step 8: Developed norms (mean average scores) for different demographic groups. </li></ul>
    20. 21. Specified the Domain of the Construct <ul><li>Conducted a literature search. </li></ul><ul><li>Developed a delineated definition of the construct: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Perceived organizational business continuity readiness: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Perceived ability of an organization to keep functioning until its normal facilities are restored after a disaster or disruptive event </li></ul></ul>
    21. 22. Generated the Initial Sample of Items <ul><li>Reviewed prior literature on the topic. </li></ul><ul><li>Examined business continuity vendor work on business continuity readiness assessment: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Gartner Group </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>IBM Global Services </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hewlett Packard (HP) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hitachi Data Services </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Abbott Consulting, Inc. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    22. 23. Generated the Initial Sample of Items (cont.) <ul><li>Reviewed Disaster Recovery Institute International’s “ Professional Practices for Business Continuity Planners”. </li></ul><ul><li>Examined 3 years of weekly survey questions posted by the Disaster Recovery Journal on its website and the related results. </li></ul><ul><li>Conducted an experience survey using depth interviews with 5 industry experts to develop a draft set of items. </li></ul>
    23. 24. Generated the Initial Sample of Items (cont.) <ul><li>Conducted an on-online focus group of 57 Master Certified Business Continuity Professionals (including business continuity planners, managers, and vendors) to develop a full range of items. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Asked the participants: “How can business continuity readiness be measured?” in terms of dimensions and specific items. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>11 participants discussed the topic in depth by proposing lists of potential measurement items. 10 additional participants commented on the appropriateness of those items. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    24. 25. Generated the Initial Sample of Items (cont.) <ul><li>Developed initial item sample characteristics: ( cont.) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Structured questionnaire – all respondents replied to the same questions. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Undisguised questionnaire – did not attempt to hide the purpose of the study. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Method of administration – on-line survey, accessed on a self-selecting basis, either from the Disaster Recovery Journal website or from a DRJ newsletter emailed to the respondent. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    25. 26. Generated the initial sample of items (cont.) <ul><li>Developed initial item sample characteristics: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>56 items proposed to measure the construct </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>8 items that asked for a direct respondent belief / opinion, using a 7-point scale of agreement / disagreement, on the degree to which his/her organization has achieved business continuity readiness. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>48 items that asked the respondent to give his assessment, using a 7-point scale of agreement / disagreement, of the degree to which his/her organization has implemented measures to improve its business continuity readiness. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    26. 27. Refined the Sample of Items <ul><li>Developed initial item sample characteristics: </li></ul><ul><li>4 additional questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>What is your level of expertise in the area of business continuity planning? (Novice to Advanced / Expert) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Have you earned a certification in the area of business continuity planning? (Yes or No) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>What is the size of your company (approximate number of employees - all locations) (7 ranges, from “Sole” to “10,000+”) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>What is the primary business of your organization? (18 options, including “Other”) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    27. 28. Refined the Sample of Items (cont.) <ul><li>Implemented the on-line version of the questionnaire to the ODU Inquisite server using Inquisite (ODU) survey software. (Contact: Dr. Joan Mann, ODU CBPA) </li></ul><ul><li>Verified that the questionnaire functioned correctly by entering a complete set of survey responses. </li></ul><ul><li>Asked 3 subjects without business continuity planning knowledge or experience to complete the survey to assess clarity and understandability. </li></ul>
    28. 29. Refined the Sample of Items (cont.) <ul><li>Conducted a pre-test using input from 5 experts (practitioner and consultant) to assess content validity in terms of applicability and representation of the perceived organizational business continuity readiness dimension. </li></ul><ul><li>No duplication or inappropriate items were identified based on the above analysis. </li></ul><ul><li>Finalized the initial version of the scale. </li></ul><ul><li>Deleted the responses of the pre-testers. </li></ul>
    29. 30. Collected Data – Round 1 <ul><li>Survey population: Executives, managers, employees, and vendors with a specific interest in business continuity planning </li></ul><ul><li>Potential sampling units: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Disaster Recovery Journal website visitors * </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Disaster Recovery Journal on-line newsletter recipients * </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Disaster Recovery Journal conference attendees </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Disaster Recovery Institute website visitors </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* Selected </li></ul></ul></ul>
    30. 31. Collected Data – Round 1 (cont.) <ul><li>Posted the survey announcement and link on the Disaster Recovery Journal site. </li></ul><ul><li>Modified and reimplemented the survey after 2 days based on belated input from one of the pre-test participants: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Enhanced survey instructions to prepare participants for questions in the form of declarative sentences with an agree / disagree scale. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    31. 32. Collected Data – Round 1 (cont.) <ul><li>Monitored the DRJ survey site daily. </li></ul><ul><li>Received daily status reports from Inquisite coordinator. </li></ul><ul><li>Monitored the Inquisite survey data results. </li></ul><ul><li># of usable surveys completed: 432 </li></ul>
    32. 33. Lessons Learned – On-line Surveys <ul><li>Build a detailed plan with completion dates; allow enough time for each step of the project. </li></ul><ul><li>Expert interviewees and pre-testers are likely to respond with second or third responses after their initial input; sometimes their late responses are important. </li></ul><ul><li>Website – related lessons learned: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The host website may change; daily monitoring is important. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other website items and placement on website may impact response. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Holiday periods may impact response. </li></ul></ul>
    33. 34. Lessons Learned – On-Line Surveys (cont.) <ul><li>Inquisite is an excellent survey tool but currently has some drawbacks: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The entire survey cannot be printed for review; must print 1 page at a time. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It’s often difficult or not possible to create desired customization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What you see is not necessarily what you get. It’s important to preview the survey itself as you build it. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Offer participants something; in this case, they responded well to the offer of research results. </li></ul>
    34. 35. Purified the Measure <ul><li>Analyzed the results of the initial data, using: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- Reliability analysis (Cronbach’s Alpha) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Factor analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Revised the questionnaire by reducing the number of items from 56 to 23. </li></ul><ul><li>Added 18 items to measure antecedents. </li></ul><ul><li>Added 10 items to collect demographic information about the respondent and the respondent’s organization. </li></ul>
    35. 36. Survey 1 Results Factor Analysis / Reliability Results
    36. 37. Proposed Antecedents of Perceived Organizational Business Continuity Readiness
    37. 38. Collected Data – Round 2 <ul><li>Used a paper survey distributed in the registration packages of the 03/2005 Disaster Recovery Journal Conference </li></ul><ul><li># of surveys distributed: 895 </li></ul><ul><li># of usable surveys completed: 126 </li></ul>
    38. 39. Survey 2 Results – Final 11-Item Scale Factor Analysis / Reliability Results
    39. 40. Confirmatory Factor Analysis – SEM (AMOS) Diagram – Survey 1 Data
    40. 41. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (AMOS) – Data from Survey 1
    41. 42. Norms – Survey 1 & 2 Data (n = 584)
    42. 43. Next Steps <ul><li>Multigroup analysis (AMOS), using the 2 groups of data collected from the 2 surveys, to determine whether or not the factor structure and factor loadings are similar between the groups. </li></ul><ul><li>Additional analysis – Survey 2 antecedent data </li></ul><ul><li>Enhancement of questionnaire to include additional antecedents and consequences </li></ul><ul><li>Survey 3 data collection (using international Association of Contingency Planners members) and analysis </li></ul>
    43. 44. Managerial & Research Implications <ul><li>Caveat: It’s perceived, not actual. </li></ul><ul><li>First study of its type to develop a measurement scale for perceived organizational business continuity readiness. </li></ul><ul><li>Useful for both business continuity vendors and practitioners, as a tool for filling a marketing information void for consultants and small vendors. </li></ul><ul><li>Can provide an evaluation tool for executives and an operational tool for managers, to be used to measure and assess readiness at both a firm level and, potentially, an industry level. </li></ul><ul><li>Might be used to formulate a scorecard, or balanced scorecard component, useful for updating Boards of Directors, internal and external auditors, industry analysts, investors, and other stakeholders. </li></ul>
    44. 45. Opportunities for Future Research <ul><li>Conduct testing within individual organizations </li></ul><ul><li>Develop antecedents and consequences of perceived organizational business continuity readiness </li></ul><ul><li>Develop an assessment tool for actual organizational business continuity readiness, which might be compared and contrasted with this perceived organizational business continuity readiness scale. </li></ul>
    45. 46. Questions and Comments . . .

    ×