In today’s rapidly changing world, the discipline of business continuity has never been more vital. Organizations operating across complex global supply chains, critical infrastructures, financial markets, and highly regulated industries are under immense pressure to demonstrate not only resilience but also full compliance with international standards such as ISO 22301, the gold standard for Business Continuity Management Systems (BCMS).
Over the years, various interpretations and methodologies for business continuity have emerged. One that has sparked considerable discussion, both supportive and critical—is the Adaptive Business Continuity (Adaptive BC) approach. Born from a desire to simplify BC practices and make them more agile, Adaptive BC encourages organizations to eliminate certain traditional components, including the formal Business Impact Analysis (BIA) and risk assessments.
While this approach may appeal to certain audiences with its promise of simplicity and flexibility, it also raises legitimate and serious concerns, particularly when assessed against the rigorous requirements of ISO 22301 and the expectations set during supplier due diligence, regulatory audits, or contractual evaluations.
In this article, we examine the underlying assumptions of Adaptive BC, its divergence from ISO standards, and the critical risks organizations face if they adopt this model without fully understanding the consequences. This analysis is presented with full respect to the intentions behind Adaptive BC but grounded firmly in the realities of compliance, operational resilience, and stakeholder trust.
Understanding the promise of Adaptive Business Continuity
Adaptive BC was introduced as an alternative philosophy to traditional business continuity practices. Its creators argue that traditional BC programs are often too rigid, bureaucratic, and documentation-heavy. They propose stripping away certain processes, particularly the BIA and formal risk assessments, on the premise that practitioners and businesses intuitively know their critical processes without the need for structured analysis.
At its core, Adaptive BC aims to:
While these principles may appear attractive, especially for smaller organizations or less regulated environments, they introduce a critical question:
Can a BC program truly be resilient, defensible, and compliant without the backbone of evidence-based analysis?
The ISO 22301 Standard: A global benchmark for Business Continuity
To answer this question, one must first understand the role ISO 22301 plays in the global continuity landscape.
ISO 22301 is not merely a guideline, it is a certifiable international standard. Organizations pursue ISO 22301 certification to demonstrate their ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disruptions in a way that satisfies regulators, customers, partners, and shareholders.
At the heart of ISO 22301 is the principle that business continuity must be evidence-based, documented, repeatable, and auditable. A cornerstone of this is the Business Impact Analysis (BIA), a structured process that enables organizations to:
ISO 22301 Clause 8.2 explicitly requires organizations to perform a BIA, not as an optional activity, but as an essential component of the BCMS lifecycle.
Where Adaptive BC diverges dnd why it matters
The most significant point of divergence between Adaptive BC and ISO 22301 lies in the rejection of the BIA process. Proponents of Adaptive BC argue that organizations already "know what's important" and that time-based impact analyses are unnecessary. While this assumption may hold in certain straightforward operational contexts, it breaks down rapidly in complex organizations or regulated industries.
Key ISO 22301 Requirements Ignored by Adaptive BC:
Over the years, various interpretations and methodologies for business continuity have emerged. One that has sparked considerable discussion, both supportive and critical—is the Adaptive Business Continuity (Adaptive BC) approach. Born from a desire to simplify BC practices and make them more agile, Adaptive BC encourages organizations to eliminate certain traditional components, including the formal Business Impact Analysis (BIA) and risk assessments.
While this approach may appeal to certain audiences with its promise of simplicity and flexibility, it also raises legitimate and serious concerns, particularly when assessed against the rigorous requirements of ISO 22301 and the expectations set during supplier due diligence, regulatory audits, or contractual evaluations.
In this article, we examine the underlying assumptions of Adaptive BC, its divergence from ISO standards, and the critical risks organizations face if they adopt this model without fully understanding the consequences. This analysis is presented with full respect to the intentions behind Adaptive BC but grounded firmly in the realities of compliance, operational resilience, and stakeholder trust.
Understanding the promise of Adaptive Business Continuity
Adaptive BC was introduced as an alternative philosophy to traditional business continuity practices. Its creators argue that traditional BC programs are often too rigid, bureaucratic, and documentation-heavy. They propose stripping away certain processes, particularly the BIA and formal risk assessments, on the premise that practitioners and businesses intuitively know their critical processes without the need for structured analysis.
At its core, Adaptive BC aims to:
- Reduce documentation burdens,
- Increase practitioner flexibility,
- Focus directly on response and recovery capabilities,
- Eliminate what it considers to be unnecessary formalities.
While these principles may appear attractive, especially for smaller organizations or less regulated environments, they introduce a critical question:
Can a BC program truly be resilient, defensible, and compliant without the backbone of evidence-based analysis?
The ISO 22301 Standard: A global benchmark for Business Continuity
To answer this question, one must first understand the role ISO 22301 plays in the global continuity landscape.
ISO 22301 is not merely a guideline, it is a certifiable international standard. Organizations pursue ISO 22301 certification to demonstrate their ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disruptions in a way that satisfies regulators, customers, partners, and shareholders.
At the heart of ISO 22301 is the principle that business continuity must be evidence-based, documented, repeatable, and auditable. A cornerstone of this is the Business Impact Analysis (BIA), a structured process that enables organizations to:
- Identify and prioritize critical activities,
- Understand the consequences of disruption over time,
- Establish measurable recovery time objectives (RTOs) and maximum acceptable outage (MAO) limits,
- Allocate resources rationally based on documented priorities.
ISO 22301 Clause 8.2 explicitly requires organizations to perform a BIA, not as an optional activity, but as an essential component of the BCMS lifecycle.
Where Adaptive BC diverges dnd why it matters
The most significant point of divergence between Adaptive BC and ISO 22301 lies in the rejection of the BIA process. Proponents of Adaptive BC argue that organizations already "know what's important" and that time-based impact analyses are unnecessary. While this assumption may hold in certain straightforward operational contexts, it breaks down rapidly in complex organizations or regulated industries.
Key ISO 22301 Requirements Ignored by Adaptive BC:
This divergence has direct, practical consequences.
The accreditation risk: How Adaptive BC threatens ISO certification
An ISO 22301 certification body operates on the premise that an organization can provide objective evidence to demonstrate:
When an auditor conducts a certification assessment, they expect to see:
Without this, the audit will result in major nonconformities, leading to:
ISO is fundamentally about repeatability and transparency. A process based solely on practitioner instinct, devoid of structured analysis, does not meet this threshold.
The commercial risk : supplier Due Diligence and client evaluations
Beyond ISO audits, the commercial world increasingly demands resilience assurance as part of supplier due diligence processes. Whether engaging in critical supply chain contracts, financial partnerships, or government contracts, organizations are regularly subjected to deep evaluations of their continuity posture.
During these assessments, clients ask for:
If an organization responds with "We do not perform a BIA because we follow Adaptive BC," it raises immediate red flags.
Key client concerns may include:
Consequence:
Organizations relying on Adaptive BC can easily be excluded from procurement opportunities, red-flagged during supplier risk reviews, or could even see existing contracts terminated for failing to meet resilience expectations.
Legal and regulatory exposure
Increasingly, regulators view operational resilience not as a best practice but as a legal obligation. Whether under:
the expectation is clear: organizations must maintain documented, defensible, and evidence-based continuity plans.
Without the formal outputs of a BIA, Adaptive BC fails to create the kind of documentary traceability regulators expect. In the event of service failures, data loss, or systemic outages, this exposes organizations to:
Operational risk management or when instinct simply isn’t enough
The belief that “we know what’s critical” without structured analysis may hold in small, simple businesses. However, the operational reality in mid-size to large enterprises often proves this assumption dangerously naive.
Consider these scenarios:
Without a structured BIA, continuity plans become outdated, misaligned, or irrelevant, often without the organization realizing it until failure occurs.
Why some organizations still fall for the Adaptive BC trap
There is no denying that some continuity practitioners are frustrated with poorly executed, checkbox-style BIA processes. This frustration is understandable, but the problem is not with the BIA itself, but with how it is performed.
An incorrectly scoped or poorly facilitated BIA leads to meaningless data. But the solution is not to eliminate the BIA altogether; rather, it is to perform it properly, lean, focused, relevant, and aligned with operational realities.
This is where experienced continuity professionals add real value. A well-designed BIA is not a paperwork exercise. It is a powerful decision-making tool that underpins every subsequent step of the BC lifecycle.
The Balanced Solution: Modern, Compliant, and Practical BCM
At Resilience Guard GmbH, we firmly believe in the importance of keeping resilience practical, efficient, and effective, without sacrificing compliance, credibility, or operational validity.
Our approach emphasizes:
The high cost of shortcutting Resilience
Adaptive Business Continuity presents itself as a modern, streamlined alternative to traditional business continuity. However, when examined through the lenses of compliance, operational assurance, and client expectations, it becomes clear that skipping foundational steps like the BIA carries substantial risks.
Organizations embracing Adaptive BC must ask themselves:
In the realm of resilience, there are no shortcuts. Simplification is valuable, but it cannot come at the expense of credibility, defensibility, and trust.
An ISO 22301 certification body operates on the premise that an organization can provide objective evidence to demonstrate:
- How critical processes are identified,
- How the impact of their loss is measured,
- What timeframes are acceptable for recovery,
- How recovery strategies are justified against documented impact and risk data.
When an auditor conducts a certification assessment, they expect to see:
- A clearly documented BIA report,
- Calculated RTOs and MAOs,
- Recovery strategies explicitly tied to these parameters,
- A logical trace between identified priorities and resource allocation.
Without this, the audit will result in major nonconformities, leading to:
- Certification failure for new applicants,
- Suspension or withdrawal of certification for previously certified organizations.
ISO is fundamentally about repeatability and transparency. A process based solely on practitioner instinct, devoid of structured analysis, does not meet this threshold.
The commercial risk : supplier Due Diligence and client evaluations
Beyond ISO audits, the commercial world increasingly demands resilience assurance as part of supplier due diligence processes. Whether engaging in critical supply chain contracts, financial partnerships, or government contracts, organizations are regularly subjected to deep evaluations of their continuity posture.
During these assessments, clients ask for:
- Evidence of a formal BIA,
- Defined recovery timeframes,
- Documented continuity strategies,
- Alignment with ISO standards or equivalent best practices.
If an organization responds with "We do not perform a BIA because we follow Adaptive BC," it raises immediate red flags.
Key client concerns may include:
- Lack of transparency: If critical process prioritization isn't evidence-based, how can clients trust that recovery plans align with their dependency on your services?
- Absence of time-based recovery targets: Without RTOs, clients cannot align their own recovery expectations or confirm compatibility within interconnected processes.
- Regulatory alignment failure: Particularly in sectors governed by NIS2, DORA, GDPR, or national critical infrastructure laws, clients expect adherence to formalized, auditable standards.
- Risk of contractual breaches: Many supply agreements include clauses requiring BCMS certification or alignment with ISO 22301 principles. Adaptive BC, lacking a formal BIA, risks non-compliance.
Consequence:
Organizations relying on Adaptive BC can easily be excluded from procurement opportunities, red-flagged during supplier risk reviews, or could even see existing contracts terminated for failing to meet resilience expectations.
Legal and regulatory exposure
Increasingly, regulators view operational resilience not as a best practice but as a legal obligation. Whether under:
- The European Union’s NIS2 Directive for network and information systems security,
- The financial sector’s DORA regulation,
- Data protection mandates under GDPR,
- Or national civil protection laws,
the expectation is clear: organizations must maintain documented, defensible, and evidence-based continuity plans.
Without the formal outputs of a BIA, Adaptive BC fails to create the kind of documentary traceability regulators expect. In the event of service failures, data loss, or systemic outages, this exposes organizations to:
- Fines and penalties,
- Litigation risks,
- Damage to corporate reputation,
- Possible regulatory sanctions or exclusions.
Operational risk management or when instinct simply isn’t enough
The belief that “we know what’s critical” without structured analysis may hold in small, simple businesses. However, the operational reality in mid-size to large enterprises often proves this assumption dangerously naive.
Consider these scenarios:
- Complex supply chains: Dependencies hidden in multi-layer supplier networks are often overlooked without formal impact mapping.
- Dynamic environments: Mergers, acquisitions, product launches, or technological changes rapidly shift what is critical.
- Cross-border operations: What may seem minor in one jurisdiction could be mission-critical in another due to differing regulatory or client demands.
Without a structured BIA, continuity plans become outdated, misaligned, or irrelevant, often without the organization realizing it until failure occurs.
Why some organizations still fall for the Adaptive BC trap
There is no denying that some continuity practitioners are frustrated with poorly executed, checkbox-style BIA processes. This frustration is understandable, but the problem is not with the BIA itself, but with how it is performed.
An incorrectly scoped or poorly facilitated BIA leads to meaningless data. But the solution is not to eliminate the BIA altogether; rather, it is to perform it properly, lean, focused, relevant, and aligned with operational realities.
This is where experienced continuity professionals add real value. A well-designed BIA is not a paperwork exercise. It is a powerful decision-making tool that underpins every subsequent step of the BC lifecycle.
The Balanced Solution: Modern, Compliant, and Practical BCM
At Resilience Guard GmbH, we firmly believe in the importance of keeping resilience practical, efficient, and effective, without sacrificing compliance, credibility, or operational validity.
Our approach emphasizes:
- Streamlined BIA processes: practical, targeted, and tailored to the organization’s size, sector, and complexity.
- Automation tools: Where possible, leveraging tools to reduce administrative burdens while enhancing accuracy.
- Risk-informed continuity planning: Grounded in measurable, documented outputs rather than assumptions.
- Compliance alignment: Not only with ISO 22301 but also with all sector-specific regulations, client expectations, and best practices.
- Audit readiness: Ensuring that every step is defensible, repeatable, and traceable.
The high cost of shortcutting Resilience
Adaptive Business Continuity presents itself as a modern, streamlined alternative to traditional business continuity. However, when examined through the lenses of compliance, operational assurance, and client expectations, it becomes clear that skipping foundational steps like the BIA carries substantial risks.
Organizations embracing Adaptive BC must ask themselves:
- Can we withstand the scrutiny of an ISO auditor?
- Will clients trust our resilience posture during supplier due diligence?
- Are we prepared to defend our practices in the face of regulatory or legal challenges?
In the realm of resilience, there are no shortcuts. Simplification is valuable, but it cannot come at the expense of credibility, defensibility, and trust.
Interested in a deeper dive? Contact us for a tailored resilience assessment.