Business Continuity & DR Review India: Documents and Evidence
Most delay on Business Continuity & DR Review India comes down to paperwork that was not ready, so it is worth knowing what will be asked for. The questions below are the ones raised most often in practice; the full scope of the service is on the Business Continuity & DR Review India page.
We have a written BCP-DR plan already. Why do we need this review?
A written plan tells you what should happen; it does not tell you whether it actually would. Common gaps we find in existing plans: RTO/RPO figures that were guessed rather than derived from a real BIA, a DR environment that was provisioned once and never kept in sync with production changes, backup jobs that run but have never been test-restored, and contact lists referencing people who have since left the organisation. This review tests the plan against reality — through document review, technical verification, and a live tabletop exercise — rather than assuming a written document equals genuine readiness.
In practice: The single most common outcome of this review, even for organisations confident in their existing plan, is discovering at least one material gap between what the document says and what would actually happen — most often in the backup restoration testing step.
Will this disrupt our day-to-day operations while it's underway?
We design the engagement to minimise disruption. Most of the work involves document and architecture review, structured interviews with process and IT owners (typically 30–60 minutes each), and a facilitated tabletop exercise scheduled at a convenient time. Any backup restoration or failover test is planned and executed in a controlled, non-production window agreed with your IT team in advance — never sprung on a live production environment without notice.
In practice: We ask for one coordinating contact — typically the CTO's office, IT Head, or Company Secretary — rather than chasing multiple department heads independently. This alone materially reduces the internal burden on your team and keeps the engagement on schedule.
Does the report get shared with any regulator?
No. This is a private, management-and-Board-facing advisory engagement — findings are reported to the Audit Committee, IT Strategy Committee, Risk Management Committee, or Board that commissioned it, not to SEBI, RBI, MCA, or any other regulator. Where an applicable regulatory framework (such as SEBI CSCRF or RBI's IT governance requirements) requires the entity itself to periodically self-certify or report DR testing outcomes, that reporting obligation rests with the entity under its own regulatory relationship — PNPC supports preparing the underlying evidence but does not file on the entity's behalf as a matter of course.
In practice: We are explicit about this distinction at the outset of every engagement, because management engages far more candidly with the review once they understand findings are not automatically headed for external reporting.
What happens after the report — does PNPC help implement the recommendations, or just identify them?
Both, by design. The report includes specific, sequenced remediation recommendations — not just a description of each gap. Where the client wants implementation support (updating the BCP-DR document, coordinating a genuine failover test, redesigning backup retention policy, provisioning a DR environment), PNPC provides that as a follow-on engagement, kept appropriately separate from the review role where independence considerations require it.
In practice: We discuss the assurance-versus-implementation boundary at scoping, particularly where PNPC also serves as statutory auditor, so there is no ambiguity about what PNPC can and cannot do in both a reviewer and an implementer capacity for the same client.
What is the role of the Audit Committee or Risk Management Committee in this process?
For listed companies and regulated entities, the Risk Management Committee (under SEBI LODR Regulation 21) or the Audit Committee is typically the body that commissions this review, receives the findings presentation, and tracks remediation progress across cycles. Even where no statutory Committee exists, we recommend the Board or a designated senior management group play this role — reviewing findings directly, assigning remediation ownership, and requiring evidence of follow-up closure rather than accepting a self-certified 'resolved' status.
In practice: A review commissioned with genuine intent but with findings handed off to an IT team with no further Board-level tracking is less likely to see remediation completed and verified than one where a Committee owns the follow-up cadence.
Where this sits in the wider engagement
Business Continuity & DR Review India rarely arrives on its own. The statutory basis and the current requirements are set out on the Business Continuity & DR Review India service page, and the related services are grouped under Business Transformation.
What PNPC does
PNPC Global has practised since 1986 across India and the UAE. On Business Continuity & DR Review India we take the work end to end — reviewing the facts, preparing and filing what is required, and dealing with the authority through to closure.