Blog Post
The Resilience Maturity Trap – Part 3 | From ISO to Action: Turning Frameworks Into Function
Making frameworks work
Senior Director,
FTI Consulting
Across industries, resilience programs are increasingly structured around recognized standards such as ISO 22301, NIST SP 800-34 and the emerging regulatory expectations for operational resilience. These frameworks establish a consistent foundation for terminology, governance, documentation and auditability.
Yet, despite their adoption, many organizations still struggle to translate framework alignment into operational performance. Plans are completed, policies are approved and audit results are returned favorable, but when an unplanned event occurs, the response often falls short of expectations.
The gap is not in intent, rather in execution. Frameworks define what to do, while capability defines how well it can be done.
Why frameworks alone fall short
Frameworks are valuable because they drive consistency, accountability and comparability. They help organizations define scope, assign ownership and ensure coverage across critical business and technology functions.
Also, frameworks are by design descriptive, not operational. They provide structure, but without an embedded capability model, organizations can appear compliant while still being unable to execute effectively when conditions deviate from the plan.
The organizations that recover most effectively are those that treat frameworks as guidance, then build on that foundation to tailor governance according to their operating model, dependencies and risk appetite.
From framework to capability
Translating a framework into operational capability requires intentional design across four key dimensions:
1. Alignment to business outcomes
Resilience must be defined in business terms: impact, tolerance and continuity objectives. Framework alignment begins with understanding which business outcomes must be protected and what level of disruption is acceptable.
2. Integrated recovery architecture
Frameworks call for plans; capability requires architecture. This includes mapping dependencies, validating failover sequencing and ensuring that people, processes, technology, and third parties, recover in a coordinated manner.
3. Testing and validation
Annual tabletop exercises are not sufficient indicators of readiness. Capability demands iterative, scenario-based testing that measures actual performance, identifies weak points and confirms that objectives can be met under realistic conditions.
4. Continuous measurement and improvement
Resilience must evolve with the business. Data from exercises, incidents and post-event reviews should feed directly into refinement cycles. This turns the framework into a living system rather than a compliance artifact.
FTI Technology provides a customizable framework to help clients operationalize these concepts, linking framework alignment to demonstrated performance. It provides a structured, repeatable method to evaluate and enhance recovery capability across people, process, technology and governance domains.
The framework ensures that each element of resilience is both validated and measurable:
- Recovery strategies are stress-tested, not assumed.
- Tolerances are confirmed against real recovery performance.
- Dependencies, including third-party services, are continuously assessed.
- Executive and board-level reporting is based on verifiable metrics.
This enables organizations to move from checklist compliance to functional assurance, providing leadership with evidence-based confidence in the organization’s ability to respond and recover effectively.
The role of leadership
For executive and board audiences, the question of resilience is no longer, “Are we compliant?” It is, “Can we recover at the speed our stakeholders expect?”
Building a capable resilience program requires more than operational discipline. It requires leadership focus. Executives set the tone by demanding performance-based metrics, integrating resilience outcomes into risk appetite discussions and treating recovery capability as a strategic competency rather than a technical one.
Resilience is not achieved through certification alone. It is demonstrated through performance.
Frameworks like ISO 22301 are essential—they provide structure, consistency and comparability across industries. However, their true value is realized only when translated into measurable recovery capability. The organizations that thrive are those that are most capable in action, not merely in documentation.
With an approach that centers around function, resilience becomes more than a standard to meet. It becomes a reliable foundation that supports the business through any disruption.
Related topics:
The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of FTI Consulting, its management, its subsidiaries, its affiliates, or its other professionals.