Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
09/07/2026 3:26 pm
TL;DR: Boards and regulators are pushing organisations toward resilience outcomes, while AI systems, backup dependencies, and cross-functional recovery make traditional disaster recovery insufficient, according to Commvault. The real shift is operational: resilience must be continuous, validated, and owned across teams rather than treated as an afterthought.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Commvault: ResOps and cyber resilience under disruption
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations build cyber resilience beyond traditional disaster recovery?
A: They should design for continuous validation, not just periodic restore testing.
Q: Why do identity and privileged access controls matter in resilience planning?
A: Because recovery depends on who can approve failover, access critical systems, and execute restoration when the normal operating model is disrupted.
Q: What breaks when recovery authority is not defined before an outage?
A: Restoration slows or stalls because teams cannot agree who may access systems, approve failover, or override normal controls.
Practitioner guidance
- Map privileged recovery paths end to end Identify every account, approval step, and break-glass path required to restore critical services when the primary team is unavailable.
- Validate clean restore before reintroducing services Require restored systems and data to pass compromise checks before they return to production.
- Extend resilience plans to AI lineage Document the datasets, configurations, framework versions, and dependency maps needed to reconstruct AI services.
What's in the full article
Commvault's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The webinar discussion on how regulatory pressure is reshaping resilience expectations for boards and executive teams.
- The practical ResOps operating model for continuous discovery, protection, detection, recovery, and restore validation.
- The AI recovery discussion covering datasets, framework versions, infrastructure configuration, and dependency mapping.
- The organisational questions around decision rights, shared ownership, and cross-functional recovery accountability.
👉 Read Commvault's analysis of ResOps and cyber resilience under disruption →
ResOps and cyber resilience: are your recovery controls ready?
Explore further
09/07/2026 3:46 pm
ResOps is becoming the operating model for resilience, not a branding layer on disaster recovery. The article reflects a broader shift in which organisations are judged on demonstrable recovery under stress rather than on the existence of backup documentation. That matters because resilience now spans systems, people, and decision rights, not only infrastructure. Practitioners should treat continuous validation as the real control objective.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when resilience testing fails to prove restore readiness?
A: Accountability should sit with the function that owns service continuity, but it must be shared across security, operations, IAM, and business leadership. Frameworks such as NIST CSF and DORA expect demonstrable resilience outcomes, which means accountability has to be assigned before disruption exposes the gap.
👉 Read our full editorial: Cyber resilience needs ResOps when disruption becomes the norm
