Tag: gap analysis

When the Horn Is in the Picture: A Fable About Capability and Blind Spots

If your organisation’s picture of itself has been painted from one vantage point for too long, the Universal Framework offers a structured way to look again – across the same seven domains the animals uncovered together: Strategy \& Direction, Decision-Making Quality, Risk \& Resilience, Execution \& Control, People Leadership, Learning \& Improvement, and Governance \& Accountability. Every engagement, regardless of scope, is assessed against the same E1 (Exists) / E2 (Enabled) / E3 (Executed) evidence logic – so the result reflects what can be demonstrated, not just what is believed. Read More

How capable are you?

Three evidence tests (E1–E3)

For each domain we look for three levels of evidence:

E1 – Exists
Do the core structures and processes exist?
(Policies, frameworks, processes, roles, plans, registers, documented approaches.)
E2 – Enabled
Are they supported and usable?
(Clear owners, resources, training, tools, data, and regular review cycles.)
E3 – Executed
Are they actually used and making a difference?
(Real examples where they shape decisions, behaviours, investments, and outcomes.)
In practical terms, E1/E2 tell you “have we built the system?” and E3 asks “does the system change what happens?”

Maturity scale (N–P–L–F)

Evidence across E1–E3 is then converted into a four‑step maturity rating for each domain:

N – Absent
No meaningful evidence; capability does not meet current needs.
P – Ad hoc
Informal, person‑dependent, inconsistent; pockets of good practice but not reliable.
L – Defined
Documented and repeatable, but weakly enforced; often strong on design, weaker on routine use.
F – Operational
Embedded, consistent, tested, and reviewed; good evidence that it works in practice.y Read More

Alignment of the Universal Framework with the American Productivity & Quality Center’s Process Classification Framework®

Understand whether your organisation is capable, not just compliant Read More

Unveiling a range of Gigs to meet your needs

We are pleased to launch a range of solutions which aim to meet various resilience needs by asking the right questions Read More

Business Continuity Review Document Checklist for Clients

Selecting the right paperwork to achieve an appropriate capability assessment review. Read More

A necessary and sufficient BCM/resilience “evidence set”

When commissioned to review a client’s continuity and resilience capabilities I am nearly always asked – “What documentation do you need to review?” You can reflect on my response below: “Minimum Viable” set to request client to consider BCM minimum evidence set: policy & framework, risk register with BCM risks and latest assessment, approved BIAs,… Read More

Necessary and Sufficient Evidence (Consolidated Framework)

For each domain, “necessary and sufficient” evidence means: the minimum concrete artefacts and observations that prove the criterion is in place (E1), enabled (E2), and working in practice (E3). Below is a concise, practical set of examples. 1. Context, Scope, Stakeholders & Strategy 2. Leadership, Governance, Culture & Accountability 3. Integrated Risk & Opportunity Management… Read More

Operational Resilience and Continuity – without the drama

Our consulting offer for vulnerable times. The gap most mid-sized firms face Most firms have bits and pieces of business continuity, risk, and IT/DR work, but too often: Plans are outdated or don’t match how operations actually run today. • Operations, IT, risk, and suppliers each see their own slice – no one owns the… Read More

How do you “see“ your organization?

Each lens is useful for different purposes. Our clients find the “systems and processes” lens particularly useful when checking for “bloat” or “waste”. This is worth doing occasionally as organizations can become misshaped or bigger than they need to be. The two most useful approaches which our clients use to address this need are: