Review of continuity planning distinguishes completed activity from verified improvement and keeps unresolved action open to further examination.
The principal risks associated with continuity planning should be assessed as connected conditions.
Application to continuity planning
In the context of continuity planning, the required public outcome should be stated in operational terms.
For continuity planning, residual risk should remain open until sustained improvement is demonstrated. Corrective action concerning the intended improvement should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period.
Across the defined scope, responsibility should be identifiable at the point where consequential decisions are made. Corrective action concerning the matter should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period. Arrangements for corrective action should provide accurate information, timely support and an accessible route for correction or review without adverse treatment.
Risk assessment of the corrective action should give particular attention to unequal access to replacement provision, loss or corruption of learner records, and loss of contact with learners. For continuity planning, analysis should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information.
Assurance of the corrective action should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include alternative delivery and accessibility arrangements, data backup and recovery tests, review of temporary measures and return criteria, welfare referral and safeguarding records, and assessment variation approvals. For continuity planning, documents should be reconciled with observed practice and, where relevant, the experience of affected learners. The corrective action should be proportionate to the identified condition and tested where risk permits.
Controls for continuity planning
In examining continuity planning: a documented improvement approach, examination of the matter should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions.
The record for the intended improvement should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route.
In the context of continuity planning, analysis should remain within the limits of the evidence.
Decisions concerning the corrective action should remain traceable to the information available for the stated reference period. Reporting on the intended improvement should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. For continuity planning, material revisions should retain their reason and effective date.
Public reporting on the matter should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. For continuity planning, material revisions should be traceable to their reason and effective date. Records concerning the intended improvement should remain traceable from source evidence to decision and follow-up.
For the matter, the implementation record should distinguish binding duties, policy expectations and institutional choices, including any transition or jurisdictional limitation. For decisions concerning continuity planning, delegation should identify both the operating role and the body retaining oversight of learner impact.