Testing contingency plans... too expensive!?

[doc_strange]

"If the risk or cost of testing failover is too high, the risk of actual failure is too high.”

That has become a catchphrase of mine. It made me wonder:

"If the risk or cost of testing a contingency plan is too high, the risk presented by actual disaster is too high.”

These may not be equivalent in value or accuracy. Discuss?

Comments

[ivy]

I think the first is better, because "failover" is a much more clear term than "contingency plan". Contingency plans could involve things that you just aren't willing to do in non-crisis situations (nuke Russia, or something), and making that simulated rather than real may undermine the value of the test. If you don't know what happens if you really nuke Russia, and you don't want to do it, making up a mythical "so now we have nuked Russia and X happens" may be contrived and inaccurate. Some things just can't be tested well.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

I tend to agree. My take on it in the following comment.