Continuity of Government VS Continuity of Operations

Disasters are usually followed by significant adversities. Private firms suffer losses beyond measure when disasters strike and the sector lose quite a lot financially. It is thus paramount that individuals share a given responsibility to contribute to the preparedness and capacity of response of their distinct communities (Kahan et al., 2009). Measures of preparedness include setting up initiatives like the Continuity of Government and Continuity of Operations that aim at acting promptly in the face of disasters. The continuity of government is a principle that establishes set and described procedures which give the government the permission to proceed with its key operations in the face of a disastrous occurrence. Such a disaster could be a nuclear war or major earthquake. The Continuity of Government was coined by the government of Britain in the time of the Second World War and was intended to counter all possible threats like the bombing of Luftwaffe (Kahan et al., 2009). With time, the need for the principle has gained both momentum and urgency. Courtesy of this increased urgency, the principle has undergone various advancements and adjustments in terms of scope. The United States does not limit the principle to nuclear emergencies only and such has been the case since the principle was activated just after the 9/11 bombing attack. The continuity of operations is an initiative by the federal government of the United States that requires all agencies manage to continue conducting crucial functions under a range of circumstances as per the Presidential Policy Directive 40 (Waugh Jr, 2013). According to the Presidential Policy Directive 40, the continuity plan development is inclusive of all the executive branches of the federal government and the developed agencies are integrated. Furthermore, the agencies overlap their capability continuity supporting the eight National Essential Functions as per the dictates of the document. FEMA recognises that a continuity plan is necessary in the event that a business is disrupted because the plan helps save on money (Waugh Jr, 2013). The continuity of operations plan has existed in the US since the time of president Dwight D. Eisenhower. It began as a principle to ensure the United States is well prepared to counter any nuclear attack or threat rather. The evident similarity is that both the continuity of operation and continuity of government are principles initiated by the government to ensure preparedness in the face of a catastrophe (Sela, 2014). The two plans were instituted by the government during a time when countries were facing possible threats from their war enemies. The second similarity is that the two principles were formulated to counter the threat of nuclear threats but have soon developed to consider all probable emergencies. It is evident from the idea that both the British government and the US government formulated the principles or initiatives rather during the Second World War to take care of possible nuclear attacks. The continuity of operations emanates from the United States while the Continuity of Government emanates from Britain. The two principles were birthed in different nations or rather by different state governments driving by their own afflictions. Secondly, the continuity of operations is only applicable in the United States while the Continuity of Government is embraced across the world. The US government formulated the Continuity of Operations for its federal government and nation (Sela, 2014). However, Britain made it a global structure that saw other nations like Canada and Ireland adopt the same. Continuity of operations and continuity of government are principles by the federal government to ensure agencies are able of facing and handling emergencies. The principles were formulated differently with the continuity of operation dating its origin to the US while that of government traces back to Britain. However, both initiatives came as a result of the need to prepare for a nuclear threat.

Cite this page