Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
02/09/2026 1:29 pm
TL;DR: Most organisations can name the owners of backup, identity, network, and cloud systems, but recovery still fails when those teams cannot bring dependencies back in the right order, according to ControlMonkey. The real risk is not backup absence but coordinated recovery across configuration, identity, and infrastructure layers, where individual success can still leave the business unable to return.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by ControlMonkey: the DR ownership gap and why disaster recovery fails at the handoffs
Questions worth separating out
A: Organisations should structure disaster recovery around critical services, not around individual systems.
Q: Why do backup and restore processes still fail during major incidents?
A: They fail because backup and restore often cover assets, while disaster recovery depends on compatible state across identity, configuration, networking, and data.
Q: What are the signs that a disaster recovery plan is too fragmented?
A: A fragmented DR plan shows up when teams cannot name the full dependency chain, when recovery order is debated during the incident, or when every owner says their system is healthy but the business is still down.
Practitioner guidance
- Build a service-level recovery map Map each critical business service to the identity, network, cloud, data, observability, and SaaS dependencies required to restore it in order.
- Add configuration state to DR scope Track known-good versions of IAM policies, cloud roles, DNS rules, and monitoring configurations as recoverable objects.
- Assign recovery authority separately from ownership Document who owns each platform and who has the authority to decide recovery sequence, release criteria, and trust revalidation during an incident.
What's in the full article
ControlMonkey's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- A practical breakdown of how configuration disaster recovery extends beyond data backup into cloud, identity, and SaaS control state.
- The handoff model for coordinating cloud, network, identity, and application owners around one recovery outcome.
- Examples of how policy drift, incomplete IaC, and missing dependency context disrupt recovery even when backup jobs succeed.
- The vendor’s view of how resilience leadership should organise ownership, authority, and testing across teams.
👉 Read ControlMonkey’s analysis of the DR ownership gap and recovery coordination →
Disaster recovery ownership gaps: why component recovery still fails?
Explore further
02/09/2026 1:30 pm
DR ownership is a coordination problem, not an asset problem. Most organisations already know which team owns each backup or platform, but that does not create recovery accountability. The real gap appears when identity, cloud, network, SaaS, and observability systems must return together and no one owns the sequence. That is why recovery governance must be built around services and dependencies, not around isolated technical silos. Practitioners should treat coordinated recovery as a first-class control objective.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should recovery leadership decide before the next outage?
A: Recovery leadership should decide which services define business continuity, which dependencies must return first, who can authorise the order of recovery, and what trusted state each system must meet before it is declared usable. That decision set turns DR from a collection of runbooks into an executable operating model.
👉 Read our full editorial: The DR ownership gap is the hidden failure in cyber resilience
