Not only does this challenge the validity of the DR solution but it also raises significant questions in the event of an insurance claim, as mentioned in our previous blog.
So why is there such a disconnect between the real and perceived levels of asset accuracy?
For most companies, the answer is hard to give. One of the major issues is the complete lack of co-ordination between the asset register recorded within finance and the inventory lists used across the rest of the organisation.
And failing to record actual assets in use can only result in organisations paying a premium for equipment that is simply not required in the event of a DR invocation.
By creating a single source of all asset data, organisations can streamline many of the processes associated with improved accuracy and financial control. Detailed information about assets can be consolidated at finance level, if required, whilst the process of asset cross-referencing is also greatly improved.
Leveraging this single data source to impose good processes, asset disposal and replacement can be input into the system locally and new depreciation values automatically calculated for the finance team, ensuring a far more truthful business value.
Furthermore, with good processes for recording asset disposal as well as purchase, organisations should retain high levels of asset accuracy. Critically, the information required for both insurance and DR planning is available, consistent and trusted, significantly reducing business risk and underpinning the growing business continuity investment.