The Matrix Approach to Incremental DRP and BCP Review

A multi-dimensional framework for maintaining disaster recovery and business continuity plans through incremental reviews, addressing the gap between documentation and actual recovery capabilities.

The technology landscape is changing more quickly than ever. Not a brave, new statement... but certainly a true one. New systems appear, dependencies shift, vibe-coded app challenge what we should expect from SaaS solutions, and team members rotate through different roles. Yet many organizations approach disaster recovery planning (DRP) and business continuity planning (BCP) as periodic "check-the-box" exercises rather than living documents reflecting operational reality.

This creates a dangerous gap between documented plans and actual recovery capabilities. And who wants to open the disaster recovery safe deposit box at the bank to find a signed original copy of Quake and a Twinkie? (This is an actual story of mine, which I'll save for another time.)

The Problem with Traditional Approaches

Traditional DRP/BCP approaches typically suffer from:

1. Annual Review Syndrome - Plans receive attention only during scheduled reviews

2. Documentation Without Testing - Detailed plans never validated through testing

3. Siloed Planning - Separate plans ignoring cross-functional dependencies

4. Outdated Assumptions - Recovery objectives based on previous priorities

A Matrix Framework for Incremental Maintenance

Instead of treating DRP/BCP as a periodic compliance exercise, organizations should implement a Matrix Approach with incremental reviews that keeps plans aligned with operational reality.

1. Classification System for Recovery Components

In keeping with ISACA- and industry-best practice, every recovery component in your environment should be classified according to their criticality and type. Lists are easy, after all, and that inventory-taking can be delegated pretty easily. But then take it a step further, creating a multi-dimensional matrix that determines their review frequency and validation requirements.

System Classification Tiers form one axis of the matrix:

Tier 0: Critical infrastructure must recover in minutes and includes authentication services, core network, and security systems. These form the foundation for all other recoveries and require the most frequent validation.

Tier 1: Essential business systems must recover in hours and include customer-facing applications, payment processing, and primary data stores. These directly impact revenue and customer experience.

Tier 2: Important operational systems must recover in days and include internal workflow tools, reporting platforms, and secondary data stores.

Tier 3: Non-critical systems can recover in weeks and include training platforms, archive systems, and development environments.

Process Classification Categories form the second axis:

Category A: Revenue-generating processes directly contribute to organizational income and include sales operations, service delivery, and product fulfillment. (THIS IS THE FIRST CATEGORY FOR A REASON!)

Category B: Customer-facing support processes impact customer experience without directly generating revenue and include customer service, account management, and warranty handling.

Category C: Internal operational processes keep the organization functioning and include HR operations, supply chain management, and facility operations.

Category D: Administrative processes support organizational functions but can be temporarily suspended and include routine reporting, non-urgent communications, and standard maintenance.

Personnel and Function Classification completes the third dimension:

Essential personnel are required during immediate response and include incident commanders, key infrastructure staff, and security teams.

Recovery personnel are required during restoration phase and include application owners, network specialists, and business unit leaders.

Support personnel are required for return to normal operations and include testing teams, documentation specialists, and training staff.

Deferred personnel can be temporarily reassigned during an incident and include project managers, business analysts, and non-critical administrative staff.

This multi-dimensional matrix creates a comprehensive view of recovery priorities and interdependencies. Each cell in the matrix (e.g., "Tier 1 Systems supporting Category A Processes requiring Essential Personnel") gets its own review cadence, validation method, and ownership assignment.

2. Matrix Management Enhancements

To make the Matrix Approach more manageable, several non-standard practices can be incorporated:

Recovery Component Heat Mapping provides visual representation of the matrix by plotting components across two axes - business impact and recovery complexity. This visualization helps quickly identify which components need the most attention without relying solely on tiered classifications.

Trigger-Based Reviews supplement time-based reviews by automatically initiating reviews when significant changes occur (new system deployments, major upgrades, organizational restructuring). This ensures plans stay current with actual operational realities.

Composite Recovery Teams organize recovery roles by capability rather than department, creating cross-functional teams with representatives from multiple disciplines who collectively own a recovery capability. This reduces silos and builds recovery knowledge across the organization.

Component Dependency Mapping creates visual maps of interdependencies between systems, processes, and personnel to quickly identify upstream and downstream impacts during planning and emergencies.

3. Sub-Plan Development and Ownership

Breaking the monolithic plan into component sub-plans with clear ownership ensures more effective maintenance and validation within the matrix framework. Anybody who's done reusable page-includes in a confluence documentation set already gets this one.

Technology Recovery Plans address the technical aspects of recovery. Infrastructure recovery plans cover data centers, cloud environments, and core hardware. Application recovery plans address software systems, APIs, and databases. Data recovery plans focus on backup validation, restoration procedures, and data integrity. Network recovery plans cover connectivity, remote access, and external service integration.

Operational Continuity Plans focus on business processes rather than technology. Customer service continuity ensures ongoing customer support regardless of disruption. Production/manufacturing continuity maintains output of goods or services. Supply chain continuity addresses vendor disruptions and material shortages. Financial operations continuity ensures ongoing payment processing, payroll execution, and financial reporting.

Crisis Management Plans coordinate the overall response. Communications management covers internal notifications, external announcements, and regulatory disclosures. Incident response management establishes command structures and escalation procedures. Stakeholder management addresses investor, board, and partner communications. Resource coordination ensures appropriate allocation of people and assets during recovery.

Each sub-plan should have a designated owner responsible for maintaining accuracy, ensuring validation, and driving improvement. This distributed ownership model prevents recovery planning from becoming an IT-only responsibility and ensures business alignment.

4. Incremental Review Cadence

The Matrix Approach enables a staggered review schedule that ensures continuous improvement while preventing review fatigue. Each cell in the matrix receives the appropriate level of scrutiny based on its criticality.

Monthly reviews focus on Tier 0 systems where downtime directly impacts overall recovery capabilities. Technical tests validate backup systems, failover mechanisms, and recovery procedures. The Infrastructure Team owns these tests and documents any gaps or improvements.

Quarterly reviews cover Tier 1 systems and Category A processes. Application Teams conduct technical tests for these essential systems, while Business Unit Leaders facilitate tabletop exercises for critical processes. HR and Department Heads validate Essential Personnel readiness through role-based drills that confirm knowledge and capability.

Semi-annual reviews encompass Crisis Management, Tier 2 Systems, and Category B/C Processes. The Executive Team participates in simulation exercises for crisis management, IT Management conducts technical reviews of important systems, and Process Owners review documentation for operational procedures.

Annual comprehensive drills bring together all components for validation with cross-functional participation. This ensures that not only do individual components work, but they function together as a cohesive recovery system.

This incremental approach ensures that high-priority components receive frequent attention, all components are reviewed at least annually, and the entire plan maintains alignment with business reality. Your solution for how this aligns with annual internal and third-party security audits may vary, but my experience and inclination is to complete this before the audit cycles if possible. In this way, you can use the internal and third-party audits to measure the efficacy of the matrix-driven program. Remember that old adage: What we measure is what can be improved upon.

Implementing Live Drills

Documentation reviews and tabletop exercises provide foundational understanding, but live drills are essential for validating actual recovery capabilities. A progressive approach to implementing live drills builds confidence and capability over time.

1. Technical Component Testing (Monthly)

Technical component testing focuses on validating specific recovery mechanisms without disrupting production environments. These tests include backup restoration validation where actual data is restored to test environments and verified for integrity and usability. Failover mechanism testing confirms that automated and manual failover procedures function as expected. Recovery time measurement establishes baseline metrics for restoration activities. Configuration validation ensures that system parameters, access controls, and dependencies are properly documented and reproducible.

These targeted tests minimize business impact while providing frequent validation of critical recovery components. They should be conducted monthly for Tier 0 systems and quarterly for Tier 1 systems.

2. Functional Validation Exercises (Quarterly)

Functional validation exercises simulate specific disruptive scenarios with cross-functional participation. These exercises typically run 2-4 hours and include key stakeholders from both technical and business teams.

Scenarios might include loss of primary data center, which tests the organization's ability to operate from alternate facilities or cloud environments. Ransomware attack response validates security controls, isolation procedures, and recovery from clean backups. Supply chain disruption exercises confirm alternate vendor procedures and minimum operating requirements.

These exercises build organizational muscle memory for crisis response without requiring full system activation. They should be conducted quarterly with rotating scenarios to ensure broad coverage of potential disruptions.

3. Limited-Scope Live Drills (Semi-Annually)

Limited-scope live drills involve actual recovery operations in a controlled environment. These drills include recovery of selected systems to alternate environments, which validates the complete restoration process including data, configurations, and connectivity. Operation from backup facilities confirms that alternate work locations can support critical functions. Implementation of manual workarounds validates that documented procedures enable continued operations during system unavailability. Cross-training verification ensures that backup personnel can perform essential functions when primary staff are unavailable.

These drills typically last 4-8 hours and should be conducted semi-annually with rotating focus areas to ensure comprehensive coverage without excessive business disruption.

4. Comprehensive Business Continuity Exercise (Annually)

A comprehensive business continuity exercise validates the entire recovery capability through a major drill involving all recovery aspects. This includes full alternate site activation where operations transition to backup facilities or environments. Simulated complete primary site loss tests worst-case scenario preparedness. Business process continuity verification confirms that critical functions continue throughout the disruption. Communications plan implementation tests notification procedures for all stakeholders. Stakeholder management validation ensures appropriate engagement with customers, vendors, and regulators.

This exercise typically spans 1-2 days and should be conducted annually with executive participation and observation. While disruptive, this comprehensive validation is essential for confirming actual recovery capabilities rather than theoretical plans. Your internal audit may already have this as a feature, and that's great. If it doesn't this might be a great opportunity to sync the two in practice.

LLM Integration and Validation

Large Language Models (LLMs) can significantly enhance the Matrix Approach to disaster recovery planning while requiring proper validation to ensure accuracy and reliability. I've used LLMs to draft or provide first-eyes on plans, and they've gotten better over time. Will I ever trust an LLM to carry out the function? Probably not.

1. LLM Applications in the Matrix Framework

That said, LLMs can expedite and improve several aspects of the Matrix Approach:

Dynamic Documentation Generation - LLMs can rapidly generate detailed recovery procedures for each cell in the matrix based on high-level inputs about systems and business requirements, ensuring comprehensive documentation without the typical manual effort.

Gap Analysis - Feed existing recovery plans into an LLM to identify gaps or inconsistencies across the matrix. It can spot missing dependencies, conflicting recovery timeframes, or overlooked components that human reviewers might miss.

Scenario Generation - LLMs excel at creating diverse, (somewhat-)realistic disaster scenarios that test the full matrix rather than just the scenarios your team commonly considers, improving preparation for unexpected events.

Plan Updating - When systems or processes change, an LLM can quickly update affected cells in the recovery matrix and identify all downstream impacts, ensuring documentation stays current with minimal effort.

Dependency Identification - LLMs can analyze system descriptions and process flows to suggest potential dependencies that should be reflected in the matrix, helping ensure recovery plans account for all critical relationships.

If you create a context document to train the LLM on your refinement of the scope and nature of the matrix for your particular business, the results will certainly improve over time. (More on that in a future article.)

2. Ensuring LLM Accuracy

To maintain the integrity of recovery plans, LLM outputs must be rigorously validated:

Domain-Specific Accuracy Assessment - Evaluate how well LLM outputs align with established frameworks and benchmarks in disaster recovery. Verify that technical procedures, configurations, and steps are correctly represented and comply with relevant regulations.

Contextual Relevance Evaluation - Assess whether LLM responses directly address specific disaster recovery scenarios and requirements within your organization's unique context. Ensure outputs reflect the correct roles, responsibilities, and communication flows.

Recovery Capability Metrics - Measure whether LLM-generated recovery time estimates align with SME-created "gold standard" answers. Assess procedure completeness and the model's ability to identify system dependencies.

3. Standards-Based Frameworks for Validation

Several approaches ensure LLM outputs meet industry standards:

Expert-Validated Evaluation - Implement reviews by domain experts who assess outputs for quality, relevance, and accuracy. Use systematic annotations from trained disaster recovery specialists to rate responses according to specific guidelines.

Benchmarking Against Standards - Validate LLM outputs against established standards like ISO 22301 Business Continuity Management, NIST SP 800-34 for IT disaster recovery, and industry-specific frameworks like FFIEC, HIPAA, or NERC, depending on your vertical.

Automated Evaluation Frameworks - Implement frameworks like IBM's Foundation Model Evaluation (FM-eval) for systematic validation. Use tools like Deepchecks to automatically identify vulnerabilities and inconsistencies before implementation. Your third-party auditor/s may have their own standard tooling, which should be considered as well.

Measuring Recovery Capability

Establishing metrics to track recovery capability ensures ongoing improvement and provides data-driven insights for investment decisions.

1. Recovery Time Performance

Tracking actual recovery times against objectives identifies gaps and priorities. Comparing planned versus actual recovery time highlights documentation or training needs. Trend analysis of recovery times demonstrates improvement or degradation over time. Calculating the percentage of systems meeting recovery objectives quantifies overall program effectiveness. I would encourage you to stick to that metric instead of being seduced into presenting total controls passed, which will look great for large, mature, vendor-delivered systems. The latter can supply data for a prettier picture for sure, but it obfuscates the point of it all.

2. Plan Quality Metrics

Measuring plan quality ensures documentation remains effective and current. Documentation completeness scores evaluate whether plans contain all necessary elements for successful recovery. Plan update frequency tracks how often documentation is reviewed and refreshed. Validation coverage percentage calculates what portion of the overall recovery plan has been tested within the prescribed timeframes. (Spoiler: If your plan is to update this every five years, think again!)

3. Organizational Readiness

Assessing human factors is critical for recovery success. Role knowledge assessment scores measure personnel understanding of recovery responsibilities. Cross-training effectiveness evaluates whether backup staff can perform critical functions. Tool and resource availability verification confirms that necessary equipment, software, and facilities are accessible during disruptions.

These metrics should be tracked over time, with targets for improvement and executive visibility to ensure appropriate focus and investment.

Sample Implementation Roadmap

Implementing this Matrix Approach requires a phased strategy that builds capability over time without overwhelming the organization (or you). I don't know your environment and its complexities any more than you know all of mine, so none of the phases have timelines associated with them. But the phases themselves are the key, and should be workable.

Matrix Approach Development and Classification

Begin by mapping your current environment into the matrix framework. Inventory all systems, processes, and personnel, then classify each according to the tiered approach. Create the initial heat map visualization to identify priority areas. Establish ownership for each cell in the matrix and develop the foundational governance structure.

Sub-Plan Development

Create standardized templates for each type of sub-plan to ensure consistency and completeness. Develop initial versions of high-priority sub-plans focusing on Tier 0/1 systems and Category A processes. Establish the review and testing schedule based on the incremental cadence framework. If implementing LLM assistance, begin developing the gold standard dataset for validation.

Initial Validation

Conduct technical testing of Tier 0/1 systems to validate recovery mechanisms and establish baseline metrics. Hold tabletop exercises for Category A processes to validate understanding and identify gaps. Validate Essential personnel readiness through knowledge assessments and role clarification. Test any LLM-generated procedures against expert review.

Process Refinement and Matrix Enhancement

Incorporate lessons learned from initial validation to improve plans and procedures. Implement trigger-based reviews to supplement the time-based cadence. Develop dependency mapping for critical components. Expand sub-plans to include additional components including Tier 2 systems and Category B/C processes. Implement tracking and metrics to measure ongoing effectiveness.

Full Implementation and Integration

Conduct a comprehensive drill to validate the integrated recovery capability. Finalize the matrix visualization tools for ongoing management. Review and refine the entire framework based on drill results and accumulated experience. Establish a continuous improvement process that maintains momentum beyond the initial implementation. Fully integrate validated LLM tools into the workflow.

Comparison with ISACA/COBIT Standard Approaches

While the Matrix Approach shares foundational principles with established ISACA and COBIT frameworks, it differs in several important ways that make it more practical and effective:

1. Framework Orientation vs. Matrix Approach

Standard ISACA Approach: ISACA and COBIT frameworks typically implement a linear Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle for business continuity management. While effective, this approach tends to treat disaster recovery as a discrete, periodic process rather than an integrated ongoing activity.

Matrix Approach Advantage: The multi-dimensional matrix creates a more comprehensive and integrated view by examining recovery components across three critical dimensions simultaneously (Systems, Processes, and Personnel). This provides greater visibility into interdependencies that might be missed in the traditional linear approach. The matrix visualization also makes it easier for stakeholders to understand their specific responsibilities within the larger framework.

2. Testing Frequency and Integration

Standard ISACA Approach: ISACA guidance typically recommends periodic testing, often annually or semi-annually. However, these tests are often scheduled as separate events rather than integrated into regular operations.

Matrix Approach Advantage: Our incremental review cadence integrates validation into everyday operations through the monthly, quarterly, and semi-annual testing schedule. This approach is more likely to be followed because it distributes the testing burden throughout the year rather than concentrating it in major annual exercises that may be postponed or abbreviated due to resource constraints.

3. Scenario Planning vs. Common Components

Standard ISACA Approach: ISACA guidance often emphasizes scenario-based planning, where specific disaster scenarios are identified and planned for. This creates a struggle between the reality of available resources and a desire to be prepared for every possible scenario. I don't need to tell you that this is generally not feasible.

Matrix Approach Advantage: Rather than trying to plan for every possible scenario, Matrix Approach identifies common recovery components that apply across multiple scenarios. Taking a high-level look at scenarios and identifying commonalities rather than assuming a granular approach allows for more efficient resource allocation while maintaining comprehensive coverage.

4. Static Documentation vs. Dynamic Management

Standard ISACA Approach: Traditional ISACA approaches often result in static documentation that gets updated on a fixed schedule, and typically contains documents that define steps and guidelines for an org to follow in case of an interruption.

Matrix Approach Advantage: An implementation of trigger-based reviews and heat map visualization creates a more dynamic management system that responds to organizational changes as they happen. By incorporating non-standard practices like dependency mapping and composite recovery teams, we create a living system rather than a static document. You may be tempted to go buy one off the shelf, but I've yet to see anything that is a true solve without a lot of contortion into Yet Another Framework.

5. COBIT Component Integration

Standard ISACA Approach: COBIT 2019 defines business service continuity as an enterprise goal (EG06) and maps it to various alignment goals and management objectives. However, this produces a large number of identified objectives that may not be practical to pursue simultaneously. Organizations often struggle to implement the full breadth of requirements, and this is where I've seen a lot of corners cut.

Matrix Approach Advantage: Our approach better integrates the COBIT components by focusing on practical implementation through the matrix structure. Rather than attempting to implement all related objectives simultaneously, the tiered approach lets organizations prioritize based on criticality while maintaining visibility of the complete framework.

6. LLM Integration

Standard ISACA Approach: Current ISACA frameworks do not adequately address the integration of AI into the disaster recovery process. There are a few new AI-focused accreditations, sure, but there's a lag in the standards catching up. The current standard documentation is primarily focused on human-driven processes with limited consideration for how emerging technologies might augment traditional approaches.

Matrix Approach Advantage: Our explicit inclusion of LLM validation frameworks provides a clear path for organizations to leverage AI while maintaining oversight, accuracy, and reliability. This forward-looking approach better prepares organizations for technology-enhanced disaster recovery planning, especially with the increased pace of change we're experiencing in the field.

From Plans to Capabilities

The goal of disaster recovery and business continuity planning isn't to create perfect documents, it's to build organizational resilience through proven recovery capabilities. By shifting from static planning to a dynamic Matrix Approach with incremental validation, organizations can transform theoretical recovery strategies into practical, tested capabilities that function when needed most.

While the Matrix Approach introduces some complexity in initial implementation and requires more consistent (though distributed) resources for testing, its visual clarity, adaptability, and integration with operations make it more sustainable and effective in the long term. It offers a practical methodology that organizations will find easier to maintain over time while still satisfying compliance requirements.

Remember, the most elegant recovery plan is worthless if it doesn't work in practice. Through the Matrix Approach, incremental review, cross-functional ownership, and progressive live drills, you can close the gap between documentation and reality to build genuine resilience rather than a false sense of security.