Capability template for operations and process improvement
Business continuity plan
For an owner or operations manager: the activities the business cannot stop for long, how long each can be down and how much data it can lose, what each depends on, the fallback for each, and named owners, deputies, contacts and a test date, ready for a competent reviewer and the owner's approval.
The outcome
When the building floods, the order system goes dark or the one person who runs payroll is away, your team opens a plan instead of improvising. It names the work that cannot wait, in the order to bring it back, with how long each piece can be down before the damage is real and how much recent data it can afford to lose.
Under every activity sits what it depends on, the people, the premises, the systems, the suppliers and the equipment, with the fallback for each, how fast that fallback is working and when it was last shown to work. Weak spots surface before a disruption does: a target that is no shorter than the outage the business can bear, a fallback that is slower than the target, backups further apart than the data you can lose, a courier whose only fallback is the same courier, a deputy who is the same person as the lead.
Each weak spot arrives as a plain question for the person who decides. A competent reviewer reads the draft, the owner settles the questions and approves it, and everyone named in it gets a copy. The AI assistant sets no recovery times, chooses no fallbacks, names nobody and contacts nobody.
Who starts the work, and when
The owner, operations manager or office manager starts it: when the business has no written plan, when the old one no longer matches how the work is done, after a disruption or a near miss, before the busy season, when a key supplier, system, site or person changes, and on the review date. They gather the facts from the people who lead each activity and from the IT provider, then run the capability the same day.
The competent reviewer, from inside the business or an outside adviser, reads the draft before the owner approves it.
What they supply
- A short scope brief. The business, the sites covered, who prepares it, who approves it, the reviewer, the plan date, how often to review and the next test date.
- The activities table. Each activity the business cannot stop for long, what it produces, what goes wrong as the hours and days pass, the longest outage the business can bear, the target recovery time and how much data it can lose.
- The dependencies table. What each activity needs, the fallback, how fast the fallback works, when it was last proven and, for systems, how often the data is backed up.
- The roles roster. Who starts and stands down the plan, who leads each recovery, each with a deputy and a work contact.
- External contacts, such as the IT provider, the courier, the insurer and the landlord.
- Notes. The disruptions that worry you most, what starts the plan, the last test, when contacts were last checked and where the evacuation plan is kept.
What comes out
One draft plan in a fixed order. A header with the scope, the dates and the counts. The recovery order. Each activity with its times, the margin between target and tolerable outage, and its dependencies, every weak spot flagged where it stands. Then the roles and deputies, the contact list, who starts the plan and on what trigger, the fallbacks the next test must prove, the decisions for the owner, the facts worth checking, the review date, the personal details left out, and blank blocks for the reviewer and the owner.
A good draft can be checked against your tables line by line, and every person named in it recognizes what is expected of them.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. The business, the people, the suppliers, the phone numbers, the dates and the times below are all invented, and the phone numbers use the 555-01xx range kept for fiction. The business is an invented 32-person kitchen-equipment wholesaler with one warehouse and office, at Unit 4. Its operations manager prepared the plan. First come the inputs she supplied, in full, then the draft the capability returned for the competent reviewer and the owner.
The inputs
1. Scope brief
Business: Kitchen-equipment wholesaler, 32 people
Sites covered: Warehouse and office at Unit 4 (our only site)
Run by: Operations manager
Plan owner, who approves: Owner and managing director
Competent reviewer: External business continuity adviser
Plan date: Tuesday 10 November 2026
Review interval: 12 months
Next full test: not yet set
Test lead: Operations manager
2. Activities table
ID,Activity,Output,Impact over time,Longest tolerable outage,Target recovery time,Data loss tolerance
A1,Taking and confirming customer orders,Orders confirmed to customers,"After 4 hours customers start phoning to chase; after 1 day trade customers order from competitors; after 2 days we lose the weekly orders from our two largest accounts",2 days,1 day,4 hours
A2,Picking and dispatching orders,Orders shipped the same or next working day,"After 1 day next-day promises are missed; after 3 days restaurants about to open cancel their orders; after 5 days we breach the delivery terms of our largest account",3 days,3 days,not data-dependent
A3,Paying staff and suppliers,Payroll and supplier payments made on time,"Payroll runs every second Friday and a missed payroll is not acceptable; supplier payments can slip 5 days before suppliers put us on credit hold",5 days,2 days,1 day
3. Dependencies table
ID,Activity,Type,Dependency,Fallback,Ready in,Last proven,Backup interval
D1,A1,Systems,Online order system hosted by Supplier A,Take orders by phone and email on paper order forms and key them in when the system returns,2 hours,never,24 hours
D2,A1,People,Customer service team (4),Sales staff (3) trained to take orders,4 hours,2026-03-12,-
D3,A1,Premises,Office at Unit 4,Customer service team works from home on company laptops,4 hours,2025-06-20,-
D4,A2,Premises,Warehouse at Unit 4,none,-,-,-
D5,A2,Suppliers,Courier B (all deliveries),Courier B's same-day service booked by phone,2 hours,2026-08-04,-
D6,A2,Equipment,Label printer (only one),Print labels from Courier B's web portal on the office printer,1 hour,never,-
D7,A3,People,Finance manager (Owen K.),none,-,-,-
D8,A3,Systems,Accounting and payroll system (cloud),Payroll bureau D reruns the previous payroll unchanged,3 days,never,24 hours
4. Roles roster
Plan role,Owner,Deputy,Owner work contact,Deputy work contact
Invoke and stand down the plan,"Joel R., Owner and managing director","Mara T., Operations manager",555-0141,555-0142
Recovery lead (A1),"Priti S., Customer service lead","Lucia F., Sales coordinator",555-0143,555-0146
Recovery lead (A2),"Sam D., Warehouse supervisor",,555-0144,
Recovery lead (A3),"Owen K., Finance manager","Owen K., Finance manager",555-0145,555-0145
Communications with customers and staff,"Mara T., Operations manager","Priti S., Customer service lead",555-0142,555-0143
5. External contacts
Contact,What for,Phone,Who calls them
Supplier C,IT support for laptops and the office network,555-0161,Operations manager
Courier B,Deliveries,555-0162,Warehouse supervisor
Payroll bureau D,Payroll fallback,555-0163,Finance manager
Insurer F,Business interruption claims,555-0164,Owner and managing director
Landlord G,The Unit 4 building,555-0165,Operations manager
6. Notes (typed by the operations manager)
Notes, Monday 9 November 2026.
1. What worries us most: a fire or flood at Unit 4, the order system
going down, Courier B letting us down in peak season, and Owen being
off when payroll is due.
2. Joel decides when we are in a disruption and when we are back to
normal. If Joel can't be reached within an hour, Mara decides.
3. Last test: a work-from-home day for customer service in June 2025.
Nothing since.
4. Contacts last checked: 2 November 2026.
5. If we lose Unit 4 the warehouse has nowhere to go. Joel has talked to
a storage company about short-term space but nothing is agreed.
6. For Sam out of hours, use his personal mobile: 555-0198.
7. Our fire and evacuation plan is separate and kept by the warehouse
supervisor.
No proof age limit was given, so the default of 12 months applies.
The output
BUSINESS CONTINUITY PLAN: Kitchen-equipment wholesaler, Warehouse and office at Unit 4
Prepared for: Operations manager. Plan owner, who approves: Owner and managing director.
Competent reviewer: External business continuity adviser.
Plan date: 10 November 2026. Next review: 10 November 2027. Next full test: not set.
Sources: scope brief; activities table, 3 rows; dependencies table, 8 rows; roles
roster, 5 rows; external contacts, 5 rows; notes of 9 November 2026
Disruptions the owner named: a fire or flood at Unit 4; the order system going down;
Courier B letting us down in peak season; Owen being off when payroll is due
Times compared in hours, a day counting as 24 hours.
Fallback proof age limit: 12 months (the default).
Activities: 3. Dependencies: 8, 2 with no fallback. Activities flagged: 3.
Roles flagged: 2. Plan-level gaps: 2. Decisions: 7.
RECOVERY ORDER
1. A1 Taking and confirming customer orders: longest tolerable outage 2 days; target 1 day.
2. A2 Picking and dispatching orders: longest tolerable outage 3 days; target 3 days.
3. A3 Paying staff and suppliers: longest tolerable outage 5 days; target 2 days.
ACTIVITIES AND DEPENDENCIES
A1. Taking and confirming customer orders. Output: Orders confirmed to customers.
Impact over time: After 4 hours customers start phoning to chase; after 1 day trade
customers order from competitors; after 2 days we lose the weekly orders from our
two largest accounts
Longest tolerable outage: 2 days. Target recovery time: 1 day
(margin 1 day).
Data loss tolerance: 4 hours.
Dependencies:
D1 Systems: Online order system hosted by Supplier A. Fallback: Take orders by
phone and email on paper order forms and key them in when the system returns.
Ready in: 2 hours. Last proven: never. Backup interval: 24 hours.
Flag, fallback not proven, backups too far apart, no contact listed: never
proven; backed up every 24 hours against a data loss tolerance of 4 hours; no
external contact line for Supplier A.
D2 People: Customer service team (4). Fallback: Sales staff (3) trained to take
orders. Ready in: 4 hours. Last proven: 12 March 2026.
D3 Premises: Office at Unit 4. Fallback: Customer service team works from home
on company laptops. Ready in: 4 hours. Last proven: 20 June 2025.
Flag, fallback not proven: last proven 20 June 2025, more than 12 months before
the plan date.
Types with nothing listed: Suppliers, Equipment
FLAG, fallback not proven, backups too far apart, no contact listed. See decision 1.
A2. Picking and dispatching orders. Output: Orders shipped the same or next working day.
Impact over time: After 1 day next-day promises are missed; after 3 days restaurants
about to open cancel their orders; after 5 days we breach the delivery terms of our
largest account
Longest tolerable outage: 3 days. Target recovery time: 3 days
(not inside the tolerable outage).
Data loss tolerance: not data-dependent.
Dependencies:
D4 Premises: Warehouse at Unit 4. Fallback: none. Ready in: -.
Last proven: -.
Flag, no fallback: the warehouse has no fallback.
D5 Suppliers: Courier B (all deliveries). Fallback: Courier B's same-day service
booked by phone. Ready in: 2 hours. Last proven: 4 August 2026.
Flag, fallback shares the failure: the fallback is provided by Courier B, the
supplier it stands in for.
D6 Equipment: Label printer (only one). Fallback: Print labels from Courier B's
web portal on the office printer. Ready in: 1 hour. Last proven: never.
Flag, fallback not proven: never proven.
Types with nothing listed: People, Systems
FLAG, target not inside the tolerable outage, no fallback, fallback shares the
failure, fallback not proven. See decision 2.
A3. Paying staff and suppliers. Output: Payroll and supplier payments made on time.
Impact over time: Payroll runs every second Friday and a missed payroll is not
acceptable; supplier payments can slip 5 days before suppliers put us on credit hold
Longest tolerable outage: 5 days. Target recovery time: 2 days
(margin 3 days).
Data loss tolerance: 1 day.
Dependencies:
D7 People: Finance manager (Owen K.). Fallback: none. Ready in: -.
Last proven: -.
Flag, no fallback: the finance manager has no fallback.
D8 Systems: Accounting and payroll system (cloud). Fallback: Payroll bureau D
reruns the previous payroll unchanged. Ready in: 3 days. Last proven: never.
Backup interval: 24 hours.
Flag, fallback too slow, fallback not proven: ready in 3 days against a target of
2 days; never proven.
Types with nothing listed: Premises, Suppliers, Equipment
FLAG, no fallback, fallback too slow, fallback not proven. See decision 3.
ROLES AND DEPUTIES
R1. Invoke and stand down the plan: Joel R., Owner and managing director, work contact
555-0141.
Deputy: Mara T., Operations manager, work contact 555-0142.
R2. Recovery lead (A1): Priti S., Customer service lead, work contact 555-0143.
Deputy: Lucia F., Sales coordinator, work contact 555-0146.
R3. Recovery lead (A2): Sam D., Warehouse supervisor, work contact 555-0144.
Deputy: none named, work contact -.
FLAG, no deputy: no one is named to lead the recovery of picking and dispatching if
Sam D. is unavailable. See decision 4.
R4. Recovery lead (A3): Owen K., Finance manager, work contact 555-0145.
Deputy: Owen K., Finance manager, work contact 555-0145.
FLAG, deputy same as owner: Owen K. is named as both owner and deputy. See
decision 5.
R5. Communications with customers and staff: Mara T., Operations manager, work contact
555-0142.
Deputy: Priti S., Customer service lead, work contact 555-0143.
CONTACT LIST
Internal: the owners and deputies under Roles and deputies, at their work contacts.
External:
- Supplier C, IT support for laptops and the office network: 555-0161. Called by
Operations manager.
- Courier B, deliveries: 555-0162. Called by Warehouse supervisor.
- Payroll bureau D, payroll fallback: 555-0163. Called by Finance manager.
- Insurer F, business interruption claims: 555-0164. Called by Owner and managing
director.
- Landlord G, the Unit 4 building: 555-0165. Called by Operations manager.
Outside organizations in the plan with no contact listed: Supplier A (D1)
Contacts last checked: 2 November 2026
INVOKING THE PLAN
Who decides: Joel R., Owner and managing director, deputy Mara T., Operations manager,
who decides if Joel R. cannot be reached within an hour (note 2).
Trigger: trigger not stated.
Stand-down: Joel R., or Mara T. if Joel R. cannot be reached within an hour (note 2).
Emergency response and evacuation: in the separate fire and evacuation plan kept by
the warehouse supervisor (note 7). This plan does not cover them.
TESTS
Next full test: not set. Test lead: Operations manager.
Fallbacks to prove:
- D1 paper order forms: works within 2 hours.
- D3 customer service working from home: works within 4 hours.
- D6 labels from Courier B's web portal on the office printer: works within 1 hour.
- D8 Payroll bureau D rerunning the previous payroll: works within 3 days.
Last test recorded: a work-from-home day for customer service in June 2025; nothing
since (note 3)
DECISIONS BEFORE APPROVAL: 7
1. A1, fallback not proven, backups too far apart, no contact listed. The paper
order forms (D1) have never been proven, and working from home (D3) was last
proven on 20 June 2025, more than 12 months before the plan date. The order
system (D1) is backed up every 24 hours; A1 can lose no more than 4 hours of
data. No external contact is listed for Supplier A, which hosts the order system.
Are D1 and D3 proven at the next full test, or before it? The backup interval
and A1's data loss tolerance do not fit: which of the two is to change? Who adds
Supplier A's contact to the list?
For: the operations manager, as test lead (D1 and D3) and as the person who runs
the plan (Supplier A's contact); the owner and managing director (the backups).
2. A2, target not inside the tolerable outage, no fallback, fallback shares the
failure, fallback not proven. The target recovery time and the longest tolerable
outage are both 3 days. The warehouse (D4) has no fallback; note 5 says a storage
company has been approached about short-term space but nothing is agreed. The
fallback for Courier B (D5) is Courier B's own same-day service. The label
printer's fallback (D6) has never been proven. Which of A2's target and
tolerable outage is to change? What is the fallback for the warehouse? What
fallback for deliveries does not depend on Courier B? Is D6 proven at the next
full test?
Options in this template for premises: another site the business already uses;
working from home; short-term space agreed in advance, to consider, not chosen.
For: the owner and managing director (A2's target and tolerable outage, D4 and
D5); the operations manager, as test lead (D6).
3. A3, no fallback, fallback too slow, fallback not proven. The finance manager,
Owen K. (D7), has no fallback. Payroll bureau D's rerun (D8) takes 3 days to be
ready against a target of 2 days, and has never been proven. Who or what stands
in for the finance manager? How is A3 running again within 2 days when the D8
fallback takes 3, or is the target changed? Is D8 proven at the next full test?
Options in this template for people: a second person trained to do the work;
written instructions for the task, to consider, not chosen.
For: the owner and managing director (D7 and the D8 timing); the operations
manager, as test lead (D8 proof).
4. R3, no deputy. Sam D., Warehouse supervisor, leads the recovery of picking and
dispatching (A2), and no deputy is named. Who is the deputy?
For: the owner and managing director.
5. R4, deputy same as owner. Owen K., Finance manager, is named as both owner and
deputy of the recovery of payments (A3), and the finance manager is also a
dependency of A3 with no fallback (D7). Who is the deputy?
For: the owner and managing director.
6. Plan, next full test not set. The scope brief says the next full test is not yet
set; note 3 says the last test was a work-from-home day in June 2025, with nothing
since. Four fallbacks are waiting to be proven (D1, D3, D6, D8). On what date is
the next full test?
For: the owner and managing director.
7. Plan, trigger not stated. Note 2 says Joel R. decides when the business is in a
disruption and when it is back to normal, and Mara T. decides if Joel R. cannot be
reached within an hour; it does not say what event or length of outage starts the
plan. What starts the plan?
For: the owner and managing director.
THINGS TO CHECK BEFORE APPROVAL
- D8: the fallback has Payroll bureau D rerun the previous payroll, and the inputs do
not say an arrangement with the bureau is in place. Is one in place? (dependencies
table, D8)
- D6: the fallback prints labels on the office printer, and the inputs do not say
where that printer is. Is it at Unit 4, and so lost with the site? (dependencies
table, D6)
- R3: note 6 gives only a personal mobile number for reaching the warehouse
supervisor out of hours, and it is left out of this plan. What work contact is
used for the warehouse supervisor out of hours? (notes, note 6)
REVIEW
Next review: 10 November 2027. Review sooner after a disruption,
after a test, and when an activity, a key supplier, a site, a system
or a person named in the plan changes.
Personal details left out: a personal mobile number for the warehouse supervisor (note 6)
Legal, regulatory and insurance duties for continuity planning differ
by country, sector and policy. This draft cites none; the competent
reviewer and the business's own advisers confirm which apply.
REVIEW, completed by the competent reviewer, not by the assistant
Reviewed by: ____________ Role: ____________ Date: ____________
Changes made at review: ____________
APPROVAL, completed by the plan owner, not by the assistant
Approved by: ____________ Role: ____________ Date: ____________
Decision: approved / approved with changes / not approved
Draft for the external business continuity adviser's review and the owner and
managing director's approval. Nothing has been sent, booked, changed or switched
over, and no one has been contacted.
Where it fits
- Operations and process improvement, where the person who runs the work knows what it depends on.
- Compliance, risk and privacy, which keeps the approved plan and asks when it was last tested.
- IT and systems, which supplies the backup intervals and proves that a restore works.
- Manufacturing, where one machine, one site or one supplier can stop every order.
- Logistics and trade, where a warehouse and a courier carry every promise to a customer.
- Professional services, where client work, billing and payroll all run on a few systems and a few people.
- E-commerce and retail, where an order system, a fulfillment partner and a payment provider each sit on the critical path.
- Established businesses, where the plan lives in the founder's head and should live on a page.
- Growth & scaling, when new sites, suppliers and systems arrive faster than anyone writes down what happens if one fails.
What has to change for your company
List the activities that count for your business and who leads each. Decide whether times are counted in calendar hours or working days, how old a proof may be before a fallback counts as unproven, and whether a target must sit a set margin inside the tolerable outage. Name your competent reviewer and who approves. Decide where the approved plan lives, how the people in it get their copy, and where the personal contact sheet is kept apart from it. Legal, regulatory and insurance duties for continuity planning differ by country, sector and policy, so your reviewer and advisers confirm which apply; the template cites none. The evacuation plan stays a separate document. It runs in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini from the tables and notes you supply, with no connection to any system. When a disruption has already happened, incident investigation and corrective actions works out what went wrong; for hazards to people at work, use workplace risk assessment.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this capability template. It was editorially reviewed on 10 November 2026. It was tried on its invented example in Claude on 10 November 2026 in one run, by a model that had not written it; the record of that run is published with it. After two independent reviews, the example's output was corrected and a few clarifications were made to the template; the record lists them, and the example has not been run again since. That run did not reach the stop conditions. It has not yet been tested in a client environment. It has not yet been tested as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing in your environment means running it on your own tables with hard cases written in advance, each with its expected behavior: a target equal to the tolerable outage, a fallback slower than the target, backups further apart than the data you can lose, a supplier whose only fallback is itself, a renamed column, a personal mobile number in the notes. The reviewer checks every time comparison against the tables before anyone relies on the plan. Pilot acceptance-test preparation builds that test set, and what we test before we call an AI workflow ready describes the record we keep.
The full capability template
Everything above is the outline. The complete capability template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Bring a real piece of this work to a call. We’ll walk through what it takes to fit this capability to your rules, prove it on your work and put it in the hands of the roles that own it.