A backup is not a disaster recovery plan
Most organizations I have worked with can answer the question of whether their data is backed up. Far fewer can answer how long it would actually take to bring a critical system back online after a real failure, or whether that recovery would meet the expectations the business has quietly assumed for years. Disaster recovery planning tends to stop at backups, when backups are only the first step in a much longer chain.
1. Recovery objectives are assumed, not agreed
Recovery time objective and recovery point objective sound like technical details, but they are business decisions that belong with the people who understand what an outage actually costs. I have seen IT teams set these targets internally, often defaulting to whatever number sounded safely conservative in an architecture review, without ever confirming them with the business units that depend on the system. One operations team I worked with had quietly assumed a four hour recovery time was acceptable for a scheduling system, only to learn during an actual outage that the business considered anything past ninety minutes a service failure serious enough to trigger customer notifications. These targets need to be set with the business, in writing, before an incident happens, not reverse engineered from whatever the architecture happens to support.
2. The plan has never actually been tested end to end
A disaster recovery plan that exists only as a document, reviewed annually in a meeting, is not the same as a plan that has been tested by actually failing over a system and bringing it back up. I push for a real failover test at least once a year, on a non-critical system at first if the organization is nervous about it, because the gap between the documented plan and what actually happens during a live failover is almost always larger than anyone expects. The first real failover test I ran on a reporting platform uncovered a database connection string hard coded to the primary region’s internal IP range, a detail nobody had looked at since the system was built, and that single line would have quietly stalled the entire recovery if it had surfaced during an actual disaster instead of a scheduled drill.
3. Dependencies outside the primary system are not mapped
Recovering the primary application does not help if the authentication service, the DNS configuration, or a third-party integration it depends on is not recovered at the same time or in the right order. I map every dependency a critical system relies on, including external vendors, and document the order in which everything needs to come back online. On one recovery exercise, the primary application came back cleanly in under an hour, but the team lost another ninety minutes because nobody had documented that the identity provider needed to be reachable first. Without that map, a technically successful recovery of the main system can still leave the business unable to actually use it.
4. People, not just systems, need a defined role
During an actual disaster, confusion about who is authorized to declare an incident, who communicates with customers, and who has the authority to approve emergency spending wastes critical time. I have sat on a bridge call where the technical recovery was done within forty minutes, but the system stayed dark for another half hour because nobody present had the authority to approve the emergency vendor charge needed to restore a third-party data feed, and the one person who did was unreachable. I include a clear roles and communication plan as part of disaster recovery documentation, not as a separate afterthought, because the technical recovery steps are useless if nobody knows who is allowed to start executing them.
5. The plan is not updated when the architecture changes
Architecture changes faster than most disaster recovery documentation keeps up with. A new managed database, a migrated authentication flow, or a decommissioned data center can each quietly invalidate the recovery runbook written against the previous setup. A plan written two years ago for an architecture that has since migrated to new infrastructure is not just outdated, it can actively point responders toward steps that no longer apply. I tie disaster recovery documentation updates to the same change management process that governs the architecture itself, so the plan cannot drift silently out of date, and I require that any infrastructure change ticket touching a tier one system include a one line answer to whether it affects the recovery runbook, even when the honest answer is simply no.
Test the plan before you need it
The organizations that recover well from real incidents are almost never the ones with the most detailed documentation. They are the ones that have actually rehearsed the recovery, confirmed the targets with the business, and kept the plan current as the architecture changed. A disaster recovery plan that has never been tested is, in practical terms, an unverified assumption, and the ninety minutes lost to an undocumented identity dependency is exactly the kind of gap a tabletop review on paper never catches. The organizations I trust most on this front are not the ones with the thickest binder. They are the ones that can tell me, without checking, when their last real failover test was and what it found.
Leave a Reply