EAFlow
Book demo

EAFLOW · CASE · PREVISIONAL

Operational continuity modeled as a connected layer over the graph

A social-security contributions financial-services organization —social-security contributions collection— tested Operational Continuity & Resilience over a representative scenario of the social-security domain in Chile. On a continuity-governance framework —policies, roles and committee—, operational continuity is modeled as a governed layer connected to critical processes, applications, suppliers, owners, technical documents, plans, tests and evidence: EAFlow links DRP/BCP, BIA analysis, RTO/RPO objectives, communication protocols, drills, findings, action plans and continuous improvement on the same Operational Graph, with continuity risks linked to the compliance model.

Every technological or process change can trigger documentary review and keep the source of truth up to date: criticality is modeled over traced data from the graph and the trail drill → plan → process → evidence is traversed as a query, leaving the real load for Discovery.

See Operational Continuity & Resilience Proof of concept · sample data

The challenge

Social-security contributions financial-services organizations with continuity obligations face a recurring pattern: the continuity model lives in static documents that age, disconnected from the operation they are meant to protect.

  • The BIA is redone from scratch each cycle. The Business Impact Analysis is assembled from interviews and spreadsheets that are not connected nor reused, so the validation with the business is repeated in full every time and the result ends up in a static document that ages.
  • Critical processes with no connected context. The list of critical processes does not appear next to the applications that support them, nor to the disruption risks, nor to the plans that cover each node.
  • RTO/RPO disconnected from the operational model. The objectives are agreed in committee and remain separated from the real architecture; any change forces a manual re-review.
  • BCP/DRP as loose documents. "Which plan applies to this process?" is answered by searching for files, and drills remain in minutes whose traceability is rebuilt on every audit.
  • Continuity and compliance live separately. Disruption risks are not connected to the risk-control universe nor to the compliance framework, even though they share processes and controls.

The continuity model is not sustained with loose documents. It is sustained with BIA, RTO/RPO, plans and drills connected to the processes, applications, risks and controls, current and traceable.

The EAFlow solution

Operational Continuity & Resilience is a cross-cutting solution of EAFlow Platform —from the Risk, Control and Continuity area— built on the shared Operational Graph layer, which joins the continuity model with the rest of the operational context and with the compliance model. The proof of concept walked, over a representative scenario to validate traceability and reportability:

  • Continuity governance. The committee, policies, roles and continuity responsibilities are declared as a framework over the graph, ahead of the metrics — continuity is governed, not only measured.
  • BIA over the graph. The critical processes expose their applications, suppliers, owners, dependencies and associated disruption risks. Criticality is modeled over traced data from the graph, not over a spreadsheet.
  • RTO/RPO linked to the operational map. Recovery time and point objectives are recorded against the processes and applications in the graph; a change in the architecture updates the continuity context without manual reconstruction.
  • BCP/DRP connected to processes and assets. The continuity and recovery plans are linked to the processes, applications, suppliers, owners and controls they cover.
  • Disruption risks connected to the compliance model. Continuity risks connect to the risk-control universe —including the Law 20.393 framework from the sibling proof of concept of Risk & Control Assurance—, closing the continuity ↔ assurance relationship.
  • Logging of drills and tests with evidence. Each drill is recorded against the plan, the process and the owners, with results and evidence connected to the node.
  • Communication protocols and continuous improvement. Communication protocols are linked to the plan and the owner, and the findings of each drill feed the action plans and the continuous improvement of the model — corporate communication to clients or regulators remains with the client.
  • Resilience dashboard and dependency map. Plan status, test results, open gaps and critical process ↔ application dependencies in a governed view, which determines the recovery order.

In this proof of concept the support was analytical —traversal over the graph, dashboard and dependency map. Natural-language querying with Max over the continuity corpus is an available capability of the solution, an evolutionary option, always with human control. The solution models, plans and enables follow-up of the continuity model, and links every technological or process change to the documentary review that keeps the source of truth up to date. The regulatory continuity obligations remain with the client and its regulator.

What was tested

The proof of concept was run over a representative scenario to validate traceability and reportability of the social-security domain, leaving the real load for Discovery. The team walked the continuity model over the graph: BIA with critical processes, applications, dependencies and disruption risks; linked RTO/RPO; connected BCP/DRP; disruption risks connected to the compliance model; drill logging with evidence; resilience dashboard and dependency map. What is demonstrated is the capability of the continuity model to keep the source of truth up to date with every change.

Demonstrated capabilities

  • Operational Graph as the shared context base.
  • Continuity governance: policies, roles, committee and responsibilities declared as a framework over the graph.
  • BIA over the graph: critical processes with applications, suppliers, owners, dependencies and disruption risks.
  • RTO/RPO linked to the processes and applications in the graph.
  • BCP/DRP connected to processes, applications, suppliers, owners and controls.
  • Disruption risks connected to the compliance model (risk-control universe + Law 20.393 framework).
  • Logging of drills and tests with evidence connected to the plan and the process.
  • Communication protocols linked to the plan and continuous improvement from the findings.
  • Resilience dashboard and process ↔ application dependency map.

Observed result

The continuity model went from "living in static documents that age" to being a connected model over the graph, where criticality is derived from traced data and the trail drill → plan → process → evidence is navigated as a query. The BIA became a navigable layer: critical processes, RTO/RPO, plans and dependencies available together, and disruption risks connected to the compliance model, so that every technological or process change triggers documentary review.

The proof of concept confirmed the functional viability of the continuity model over the Operational Graph as a step prior to modeling the client's critical operation in Discovery.

Why it matters for other organizations

The pattern repeats in financial-services organizations with continuity obligations: the BIA is redone from scratch each cycle, the plans live loose and the disruption risks are not connected to the compliance model. Building the continuity model over the Operational Graph —under a continuity-governance framework and linking BIA, RTO/RPO, plans, communication protocols and drills with the processes, applications, suppliers, risks and controls— keeps the model current and traceable, connects continuity with assurance and feeds continuous improvement.

Starting with the continuity model is also a low-risk entry point: the same Operational Graph that connects critical processes and dependencies later sustains the risk-control universe, the application inventory and the documentary evidence.

How it scales — related solutions

The connected continuity model is reused over the same Operational Graph:

Evaluate my use case See Operational Continuity & Resilience