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

[cruiser.livejournal.com]

It also could be evidence that the contingency that the contingency plan is designed to mitigate is so bad that any plan, even a bad one, is better than no plan at all. It also probably means that the situation is so unlikely to happen that the cost of testing the plan is greater than the cost of the problems created by the situation. multiplied by the probablility of it happening.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

I agree. It could be evidence that the harm to which the risk points is hard to mitigate. One should then check the likelihood of the risk materializing over /n/ timeframe. Your approach seems akin to the Learned Hand rule in essence.

But if the cost testing of the contingency plan is high, and the risk is also likely within a given timeframe, then one should look to remediating/reducing not only the effect of the harm (as you say, the plan being better then none at all) but the risk of occurrence. That's where I come to the point that the "too expensive to test" contingency plan can be evidence of too high a risk: risk that perhaps could have been reduced in depth or likelihood. Such a plan can also be, I agree, for unlikely-but-high-cost risks, a cost that may be as much as it's worth given the low likelihood.

While the military makes plans for all kinds of extremely unlikely scenarios, I don't think business tends to - and for straight-up economic reasons; ergo if there is a plan it would be for a not-entirely-unlikely risk. That's why the comparison of my first quote (very business oriented) with the second (much broader) is interesting to me.

Good comments - thanks!