Author: Marc Vael
Author Marc Vael discusses in the first chapter of his book ‘Continuity in the Public Sector’ the challenges surrounding continuity in the public sector. He starts by broadly addressing processes and the various possible types of vulnerabilities of organizations. In a second chapter, the author discusses the different perspectives of continuity management as success factors. In the third chapter, he gets into his stride with the project to tackle continuity management, which then translates into a project with a cycle that goes through the same steps: initiation, risk analysis, design, implementation, and maintenance, and exercise and improvement. The final chapter is about audit and completes the process.
For 42€, I had higher expectations for ‘Continuity in the Public Sector’: among other things, fewer language errors and a word of thanks to the people who should have taken care of that.
Additionally, the author sometimes gets carried away with the target audience of the book, as arguments typically for the private sector creep in here and there, including on pages 90, 118, and 124. Respectively: the entity does not enter into insurance agreements, and the decision of monthly turnover as an insurable amount makes little sense: a public sector does not really generate turnover. Moreover, the argument about loyalty exercises on page 118, since the government is quite certain that for most services, citizens have nowhere else to go. On page 124 of ‘Continuity in the Public Sector’, the author talks about insurance claims, but except for possibly municipalities, the government is its own insurer.
Before that, the author talks in an unnuanced manner about MTPOD: maximum tolerable period of downtime. My question is regarding ‘Continuity in the Public Sector’ is whether they always calculate this from the initial moment an incident occurs (in theory, perhaps) or from the discovery of a crisis (since the starting moment is not always clear).
But the book must also be credited where it’s due: the approach to continuity is solidly told with a number of clearly distinguished steps. What I find regrettable is that too little connection is made with the PDCA cycle of Deming, which is firmly entrenched in the government.
Furthermore in ‘Continuity in the Public Sector’, I also find it regrettable that in terms of the wording of the criticality of the processes, the author does not adhere to the terminology defined by the Flemish government: he speaks of essential, important, and relevant functions instead of time-critical, essential, and necessary functions. What’s in a name? Obviously, confusion!
Personally, I was most charmed by the appendices.
In short, if I were the author of this ‘Continuity in the Public Sector’, I would revise the book.