Boards want practical assurance, not further policy approval. Our two-session model produces evidence of improvement, not just recommendations.
Most BC plans are written, approved, and filed. The people named in them have not rehearsed their roles. The dependencies between teams have not been tested under time pressure. The gaps only become visible when an incident occurs.
Boards and auditors are increasingly asking for evidence of testing, not evidence that a plan exists. A desktop exercise conducted by an independent facilitator produces that evidence and identifies the gaps before they matter.
We design a realistic scenario based on your sector, your size, and the dependencies in your plan. Participants receive a briefing in advance. No surprises, no theatre.
A structured exercise with your response team. We facilitate, observe, and record. Every decision and gap is documented in real time.
A written report with specific, prioritised improvements. Not a generic checklist. Mapped to the gaps observed during the exercise.
A second exercise to confirm improvements have been implemented. This session produces the evidence record that demonstrates progress to auditors and the board.
"One of the best BCMS examples she had ever audited."
How we design, facilitate, and document BC testing exercises. One page. No sales content.
Your document is ready.
Download the SSF BC Testing Approach (PDF)15 minutes to understand your current position and whether a desktop exercise is the right next step.
Book a Conversation