Topic starter
09/07/2026 3:26 pm
TL;DR: Operational resilience is still being undermined by siloed recovery tools, fragmented teams, and overreliance on “hero” expertise, while AI-enabled threats and cloud complexity raise the stakes, according to Commvault. The real shift is from separate plans to a continuous operating model that treats resilience as governance, not a tool purchase.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Commvault: “From Recovery to ResOps™: Building Enterprise Resilience That Scales”.
Key questions
Q: What is the first step in building a resilience operations model?
A: Start by defining the business outcome resilience must achieve, then translate that into KPIs, SLAs, and ownership.
Q: Why do separate recovery tools often fail in practice?
A: Separate tools fail because recovery is a chain, not a product category.
Q: What are the signs that resilience is too dependent on individual experts?
A: Look for recovery steps that only one or two people can explain, incident decisions that are not written down, and repeated pauses while teams wait for a known expert.
Practitioner guidance
- Define resilience as a business outcome Set explicit resilience objectives, KPIs, SLAs, and recovery expectations before choosing tools or reorganising teams.
- Build cross-functional ownership Create a standing team that brings together IT operations, security operations, DevOps, and business leaders with named decision rights.
- Replace hero knowledge with documented runbooks Capture restoration steps, dependencies, and escalation paths in tested procedures so recovery does not depend on individual memory.
Bottom line: ResOps treats resilience as an operating model because fragmented tools and isolated teams leave recovery gaps that only appear under real disruption.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
09/07/2026 3:45 pm
Resilience is now an identity governance problem as much as an operations problem. Once recovery depends on coordinated access, ownership, and decision-making across ITOps, SecOps, and DevOps, the control gap is no longer only technical. The real failure mode is fragmented accountability, where no function can prove it owns the full restoration path. Practitioners should treat resilience as a governed operating model with identity-style accountability across roles and handoffs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should organisations prioritise governance or new resilience technology first?
A: Governance should come first, because new technology cannot fix an undefined operating model. Organisations need agreement on who owns resilience, what outcomes matter, and how performance will be measured before selecting tools. Without that, technology becomes another silo instead of the mechanism that connects recovery work.
👉 Read our full editorial: ResOps shows why resilience must become an operating model