EAFLOW · CASE · PREVISIONAL
Operational continuity over the graph, not over assumptions
A social-security contributions financial-services organization —social-security contributions collection— tested Operational Continuity & Resilience as a proof of concept, over a representative scenario with sample data of the social-security domain in Chile: BIA, RTO/RPO, BCP/DRP and drills connected to critical processes, applications, disruption risks and controls over the Operational Graph, with continuity risks linked to the compliance model.
The proof of concept showed that the solution works over a representative scenario of the social-security domain and the value it delivers: criticality is modeled over traced data from the graph and the trail drill → plan → process → evidence is traversed as a query, not as a BIA that starts from scratch each cycle.
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 starts from scratch each cycle. The Business Impact Analysis is built with interviews and spreadsheets; 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 covered, over a representative scenario with sample data:
- BIA over the graph. The critical processes expose their applications, 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, 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.
- 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 that was not activated in this experience; it remains an evolutionary option, always with human control. The solution models, plans and enables follow-up of the continuity model; it does not operate the live crisis nor replace a crisis-management platform. The regulatory continuity obligations remain with the client and its regulator.
What was tested
The proof of concept was run over a representative scenario with sample data of the social-security domain —not over the client's real critical operation—. 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 tested is the capability of the continuity model, not an implementation over the client's production operation.
Demonstrated capabilities
- Operational Graph as the shared context base.
- BIA over the graph: critical processes with applications, owners, dependencies and disruption risks.
- RTO/RPO linked to the processes and applications in the graph.
- BCP/DRP connected to processes, applications, 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.
- 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 stopped starting from scratch: critical processes, RTO/RPO, plans and dependencies became available as a navigable layer, and disruption risks were connected to the compliance model instead of living apart.
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 real critical operation.
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 —linking BIA, RTO/RPO, plans and drills with the processes, applications, risks and controls— keeps the model current and traceable, and connects continuity with assurance.
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:
- Toward implementation with the client operation Operational Continuity & Resilience
A binding BIA over the client critical processes, contractual RTO/RPO, production BCP/DRP, drill logging and a resilience dashboard.
- Toward Risk & Control Assurance Risk & Control Assurance
Disruption risks integrate into the risk-control universe and the Law 20.393 framework (sibling proof of concept of Risk & Control Assurance).
- Toward processes Process Knowledge
The critical processes connect to the process corpus.
- Toward Live IT Inventory Live IT Inventory
The applications that support the critical processes connect to the inventory.
- Toward living documents Document Governance & Evidence
BCP/DRP and drill evidence enter document governance.