Business Impact Analysis Template (ISO 22301, MTPD, RTO, RPO)
Stand-alone BIA: impact criteria, impact over time, MTPD, RTO, RPO, MBCO, prioritized activities, resources, dependencies, gaps, links to BCP and DR
使い方: Use it before choosing continuity strategies, to decide which activities must be resumed first, how fast and at what minimum level. Fill the impact scale and its approval first, then interview activity owners per time point. The main pitfall is copying IT's current backup and restore times into the RPO and RTO columns instead of deriving them from business impact.
プレビュー
Business Impact Analysis: [Organization or scope name]
A stand-alone business impact analysis (BIA) that identifies the organization's prioritized activities, assesses how the impact of a disruption grows over time, and sets the maximum tolerable period of disruption (MTPD), recovery time objective (RTO), recovery point objective (RPO) and minimum business continuity objective (MBCO) for each activity, together with the people, information, ICT, facilities and suppliers each one needs. Structure aligned with ISO 22301:2019 with Amd 1:2024 (clause 8.2.2) and ISO/TS 22317:2021, with NIST SP 800-34 Rev. 1 as a free alternative method. The results feed the business continuity plan, the disaster recovery plan and the risk assessment. Replace every
[bracketed]value and every row marked Example.
Document control
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document ID | [BIA-2026-001] |
| Version | [0.1] |
| Status | [Draft / In review / Approved / Superseded] |
| Owner | [@business-continuity-manager] |
| Approvers/reviewers | [@coo], [@cio], [@cfo], [@head-of-risk], [activity owners] |
| Scope of this BIA | [Legal entities, sites, products and services covered] |
| BIA cycle | [Annual / After significant change], reference date YYYY-MM-DD |
| Linked management system | [ISO 22301 BCMS / ISO/IEC 27001 ISMS / None] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Next scheduled review | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Classification | [Confidential] |
Approvals
| Role | Name | Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top management sponsor | [@name] | [Approve / Approve with conditions / Reject] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Chief information officer | [@name] | [Decision] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Chief financial officer (impact criteria) | [@name] | [Decision] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Business continuity manager | [@name] | [Decision] | YYYY-MM-DD |
Revision history
| Version | Date | Author | Change summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | First draft, impact criteria agreed |
| 0.2 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Example: Interviews with five activity owners recorded |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Example: Approved, objectives handed to BCP and DR owners |
Contents
- Purpose, scope and method
- Impact categories and criteria
- Products, services and activities
- Impact over time
- Time objectives
- Prioritized activities
- Dependencies and resources
- Gap analysis
- Outputs and traceability
- Review and maintenance
- Glossary and references
1. Purpose, scope and method
1.1 Purpose
This BIA determines which activities of [Organization] must be resumed first after a disruption, how quickly, at what minimum level, and with which resources. Its results are the basis for the continuity strategies and solutions in [BCP reference] and the recovery design in [DR plan reference].
1.2 Scope
| Item | In scope | Out of scope (with reason) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal entities | [Entity names] | [Entity, reason] |
| Sites | [Sites] | [Site, reason] |
| Products and services | [List] | [List, reason] |
| Time horizon assessed | [4 hours to 2 weeks] | |
| Example: Tervane Logistics | Head office, two cross-dock warehouses, customs brokerage, freight forwarding | Leased truck fleet (operated by a contractor under its own continuity plan) |
1.3 Method
The method follows the steps that ISO 22301:2019 clause 8.2.2 sets for a BIA, written here in original wording:
- Define the impact types and the criteria that describe each level of impact (section 2).
- Identify the activities that support the delivery of products and services (section 3).
- Assess the impacts of not performing each activity over time (section 4).
- Find the point at which the impact of not resuming an activity becomes unacceptable, and set the prioritized timeframe for resuming it at a specified minimum capacity (section 5).
- Use the results to identify prioritized activities (section 6).
- Determine the resources needed to support prioritized activities, and the dependencies, including partners and suppliers, and interdependencies between activities (section 7).
ISO/TS 22317:2021 gives guidance on running the BIA as a programme, scoping it, and analysing at the level of products and services, processes, activities and resources. NIST SP 800-34 Rev. 1 (section 3.2) gives a free alternative for information systems in three steps: determine mission and business processes and recovery criticality, identify resource requirements, and identify recovery priorities for system resources.
1.4 Data collection
| Technique | Used for | Participants |
|---|---|---|
| Structured interview | Impact over time, minimum capacity, workarounds | Activity owners and deputies |
| Workshop | Calibrating scores across departments | Heads of department, BC manager |
| Document review | Contracts, SLAs, regulatory deadlines, historic incidents | BC manager, legal, procurement |
| System data | Transaction volumes, peak periods, backup schedules | IT operations, finance |
2. Impact categories and criteria
Score each impact category from 1 to 5. The overall impact at a point in time is the highest score in any category, not the average, so that one severe consequence is never diluted by mild ones.
| Score | Financial (cumulative loss) | Customers and service | Legal and regulatory | Reputation | People and safety |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Minimal | Under [10,000] | Minor delay, no complaints | No breach | No external attention | No effect |
| 2 Minor | [10,000] to under [50,000] | Delays noticed by some customers | Minor breach, self-correctable | Local complaints | Overtime needed |
| 3 Moderate | [50,000] to under [150,000] | Service levels missed for key customers | Breach reportable to a regulator | Trade press coverage | Staff welfare affected |
| 4 Severe | [150,000] to under [500,000] | Key customers lost or penalties triggered | Statutory deadline missed, sanctions likely | National media coverage | Injury risk or loss of key staff |
| 5 Critical | [500,000] or more | Service cannot be delivered, contracts terminated | Licence or authorisation at risk | Sustained national coverage | Serious harm |
Define the unacceptable level: an activity reaches its MTPD at the earliest time point where its overall impact score is 4 or higher. Record the threshold the sponsor approved: [threshold and approval reference].
ISO 22301:2019 Amd 1:2024 added a requirement to determine whether climate change is a relevant issue when the organization determines its context. Where climate related events (heat, flood, storms) could affect sites or suppliers, note them in the risk assessment and check whether they change peak periods or dependencies recorded here.
3. Products, services and activities
3.1 Products and services
| ID | Product or service | Customers | Contractual or legal commitments | Peak periods |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PS-01 (Example) | Import customs brokerage | Importers, retailers | Declarations within statutory deadlines, customer SLA 4 hours | Weekdays, pre-holiday season |
| PS-02 (Example) | Freight forwarding and warehousing | Retail and industrial shippers | Dispatch within 24 hours of order, SLA credits | October to December |
| PS-03 (Example) | Shipment visibility | All customers | Portal availability 99.5% monthly | Continuous |
| [PS-NN] | [Product or service] | [Customers] | [Commitments] | [Peaks] |
3.2 Activities
| ID | Activity | Supports | Owner | Normal headcount | Main applications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACT-01 (Example) | Customs declaration filing | PS-01 | [@customs-lead] | 15 | Customs gateway (CGW) |
| ACT-02 (Example) | Shipment booking and carrier allocation | PS-02 | [@ops-lead] | 12 | Transport management system (TMS) |
| ACT-03 (Example) | Warehouse dispatch | PS-02 | [@warehouse-lead] | 40 | Warehouse management system (WMS) |
| ACT-04 (Example) | Customer track-and-trace portal | PS-03 | [@cx-lead] | 6 | Portal, TMS |
| ACT-05 (Example) | Payroll | All (internal) | [@payroll-lead] | 3 | Payroll SaaS |
| [ACT-NN] | [Activity] | [PS-NN] | [@owner] | [n] | [Applications] |
4. Impact over time
4.1 Time points
Use the same time points for every activity: 4 hours, 24 hours, 72 hours, 1 week (168 hours) and 2 weeks (336 hours). Add shorter points (for example 1 hour) for activities with real-time obligations.
4.2 Detailed assessment (one table per activity)
Example: ACT-01 Customs declaration filing, assessed for the peak season.
| Time point | Financial loss (EUR, cumulative) | Financial score | Customers | Legal and regulatory | Reputation | Overall (highest) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 hours | 6,000 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 24 hours | 48,000 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| 72 hours | 210,000 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| 1 week | 640,000 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| 2 weeks | 1,350,000 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Rationale recorded at interview: goods held at the border start to accrue storage and demurrage charges after the first day; declarations not lodged within the statutory window expose customers and the broker to penalties, which drives the legal score to 4 at 24 hours.
4.3 Summary of overall scores
| Activity | 4 h | 24 h | 72 h | 1 week | 2 weeks | Peak period assessed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACT-01 (Example) | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | Pre-holiday season |
| ACT-02 (Example) | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | October to December |
| ACT-03 (Example) | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | October to December |
| ACT-04 (Example) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Continuous |
| ACT-05 (Example) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Payroll run (day 25 of the month) |
5. Time objectives
5.1 Definitions used in this BIA
| Objective | Meaning in this document | Set by |
|---|---|---|
| MTPD | Time after which the impact of not resuming the activity becomes unacceptable (first score of 4 or higher) | Section 4 results, approved by the sponsor |
| RTO | Target time to resume the activity at its MBCO after a disruption starts | Activity owner, within the MTPD rule below |
| RPO | Maximum age of the data the activity can restart from, measured back from the disruption | Activity owner with the information owner |
| MBCO | Minimum level of output, as a share of normal volume, acceptable during the disruption | Activity owner, agreed with customers where contracts apply |
NIST SP 800-34 Rev. 1 uses maximum tolerable downtime (MTD), which plays the role of MTPD for an information system, and splits it into RTO plus work recovery time (WRT): the time to verify data and bring the process back after the system is restored. Plan so that RTO plus WRT stays within the MTPD.
5.2 Rules
- RTO is no more than 50% of MTPD, leaving the remainder for detection, decision, invocation and work recovery. [Adjust the percentage and record the approval.]
- The RTO of every application and supplier an activity depends on is no longer than the activity's RTO.
- The RPO is no longer than the period of transactions the activity can re-enter or reconstruct from other sources within its RTO.
- MBCO is stated as a measurable volume, not as "reduced service".
5.3 Objectives
| Activity | MTPD | RTO | RTO as share of MTPD | RPO | MBCO | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACT-01 (Example) | 24 h | 8 h | 33% | 1 h | 60% of declarations | Legal score reaches 4 at 24 h |
| ACT-02 (Example) | 72 h | 24 h | 33% | 4 h | 50% of bookings | Customer score reaches 4 at 72 h |
| ACT-03 (Example) | 72 h | 24 h | 33% | 1 h | 70% of dispatches | SLA credits at 72 h in peak season |
| ACT-04 (Example) | 1 week | 72 h | 43% | 24 h | 40% of tracking queries answered | Customers can phone in the interim |
| ACT-05 (Example) | 2 weeks | 1 week | 50% | 24 h | 100% of the payroll run on its due date | Late pay harms staff and breaches contracts |
6. Prioritized activities
| Rank | Activity | RTO | Recovery tier | Must restart together with |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (Example) | ACT-01 Customs declaration filing | 8 h | Tier 1 (under 24 h) | None |
| 2 (Example) | ACT-03 Warehouse dispatch | 24 h | Tier 2 (24 to 72 h) | ACT-02 |
| 3 (Example) | ACT-02 Shipment booking and carrier allocation | 24 h | Tier 2 (24 to 72 h) | ACT-03 |
| 4 (Example) | ACT-04 Customer track-and-trace portal | 72 h | Tier 3 (72 h to 1 week) | ACT-02 data feed |
| 5 (Example) | ACT-05 Payroll | 1 week | Tier 4 (over 1 week) | None, but date-driven |
| [n] | [Activity] | [RTO] | [Tier] | [Dependencies] |
ACT-03 ranks above ACT-02 with the same RTO because its RPO is shorter and its peak-season impact at 72 hours is driven by contractual credits that start sooner.
Activities not listed as prioritized are resumed after the tiers above, in the order set by [BC manager] at the time, unless their MTPD changes at the next review.
7. Dependencies and resources
7.1 People
| Activity | Normal headcount | MBCO | Minimum headcount at MBCO | Key skills or authorisations | Single points of failure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACT-01 (Example) | 15 | 60% | 9 | Licensed customs declarants | Two staff hold the gateway signing certificate |
| ACT-02 (Example) | 12 | 50% | 6 | Carrier contract knowledge | None identified |
| ACT-03 (Example) | 40 | 70% | 28 | Forklift licences, dangerous goods training | One shift supervisor per site |
| ACT-04 (Example) | 6 | 40% | 3 (2.4 rounded up) | Portal admin rights | None identified |
| ACT-05 (Example) | 3 | 100% | 2 (one preparer and one approver can run the full payroll) | Payroll system approver | One approver for bank file release |
7.2 Information and ICT
| Application or data set | Supports | Required RTO (from activity) | Required RPO | Current RTO capability | Current RPO capability | Hosting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customs gateway (CGW) (Example) | ACT-01 | 8 h | 1 h | 12 h (supplier contract) | 15 min | SaaS, [Supplier A] |
| TMS (Example) | ACT-02, ACT-04 | 24 h | 4 h | 12 h | 1 h | Private cloud |
| WMS (Example) | ACT-03 | 24 h | 1 h | 12 h | 4 h | On-premises, site 1 |
| Payroll SaaS (Example) | ACT-05 | 1 week | 24 h | 48 h | 24 h | SaaS, [Supplier B] |
| [Application] | [ACT-NN] | [RTO] | [RPO] | [Capability] | [Capability] | [Hosting] |
7.3 Facilities and equipment
| Activity | Normal location | Alternative location | Equipment needed at MBCO | Time to ready alternative |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACT-01 (Example) | Head office | Remote working with VPN | 9 laptops, signing certificates on hardware tokens | 2 h |
| ACT-03 (Example) | Cross-dock site 1 | Cross-dock site 2 (spare capacity 30%) | Handheld scanners, label printers | 12 h |
| [Activity] | [Location] | [Alternative] | [Equipment] | [Time] |
7.4 Suppliers and partners
| Supplier | Service | Supports | Contractual recovery commitment | Has own continuity plan seen | Alternative supplier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Supplier A] (Example) | Customs gateway SaaS | ACT-01 | RTO 12 h, RPO 15 min | Yes, summary only | Manual filing via the authority portal |
| [Supplier C] (Example) | Contracted truck fleet | ACT-03 | Replacement vehicles within 24 h | Yes | Spot market carriers |
| [Supplier] | [Service] | [ACT-NN] | [Commitment] | [Yes / No] | [Alternative] |
7.5 Interdependencies between activities
Arrows point from the provider of an input to the activity that needs it. A disruption of the TMS therefore affects ACT-02 and ACT-04 directly and ACT-03 through the booking feed.
8. Gap analysis
| Gap ID | Activity | Requirement | Current capability | Shortfall | Proposed treatment | Owner | Target date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GAP-01 (Example) | ACT-01 | CGW RTO 8 h | Supplier contract RTO 12 h | 4 h | Negotiate RTO 6 h at renewal, document manual filing fallback | [@procurement] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| GAP-02 (Example) | ACT-03 | WMS RPO 1 h | Backups every 4 h | 3 h | Enable log shipping to site 2 | [@it-ops] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| GAP-03 (Example) | ACT-01 | 9 declarants able to sign | 2 certificate holders | Concentration of signing authority | Issue certificates to 3 more declarants | [@customs-lead] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| GAP-04 (Example) | ACT-05 | Two bank file approvers | One approver | Single point of failure | Appoint deputy approver | [@cfo] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| [GAP-NN] | [ACT-NN] | [Requirement] | [Capability] | [Shortfall] | [Treatment] | [@owner] | YYYY-MM-DD |
Record each gap in the risk register (compliance/risk-register) so
that its treatment is tracked with other risks, and reference the risk
ID here once assigned.
9. Outputs and traceability
| BIA output | Consumer document | Section or field | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prioritized activities and RTO (section 6) | Business continuity plan | Recovery sequence | [Linked / Pending] |
| ICT RTO and RPO (section 7.2) | Disaster recovery plan | Recovery tiers and backup schedule | [Linked / Pending] |
| Supplier commitments (section 7.4) | Supplier security assessment, contracts | Continuity clauses | [Linked / Pending] |
| Gaps (section 8) | Risk register | Risk entries and treatment plans | [Linked / Pending] |
| Resources at MBCO (section 7) | Continuity strategies and solutions | Resource requirements | [Linked / Pending] |
| Impact criteria (section 2) | Risk methodology | Consequence scale alignment | [Linked / Pending] |
Traceability matrix:
| Activity | MTPD | RTO | BCP procedure | DR tier | Exercise that validated it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACT-01 (Example) | 24 h | 8 h | BCP-PROC-01 | Tier 1 | EX-2026-02 tabletop |
| ACT-03 (Example) | 72 h | 24 h | BCP-PROC-03 | Tier 2 | EX-2026-04 site switch test |
| [ACT-NN] | [MTPD] | [RTO] | [Procedure] | [Tier] | [Exercise] |
10. Review and maintenance
Review the BIA at least [annually] and also when any of these triggers occurs:
- a new product, service, site, legal entity or major customer contract;
- a change of a critical supplier or of a core application;
- a merger, acquisition, restructuring or outsourcing decision;
- an exercise or real disruption showing that an objective was wrong;
- a change in legal or regulatory deadlines that affect impact scores.
| Review | Date | Trigger | Changes made | Approved by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [R-01] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Annual / Trigger] | [Summary] | [@name] |
Report the BIA status, open gaps and any changed objectives to the
management review (compliance/management-review).
11. Glossary and references
11.1 Glossary
| Term | Meaning in this document |
|---|---|
| Activity | A set of tasks that produces or supports a product or service |
| Prioritized activity | An activity given precedence after a disruption to limit impact |
| MTPD | Maximum tolerable period of disruption, see section 5.1 |
| RTO | Recovery time objective, see section 5.1 |
| RPO | Recovery point objective, see section 5.1 |
| MBCO | Minimum business continuity objective, see section 5.1 |
| MTD | Maximum tolerable downtime, the NIST SP 800-34 term close to MTPD |
| WRT | Work recovery time, the time after system restoration to verify data and resume the process |
| BCMS | Business continuity management system |
11.2 References
| Reference | Edition or date | Use |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 22301, Security and resilience, Business continuity management systems, Requirements | 2019 with Amd 1:2024; a revision is at committee draft stage (ISO/CD 22301), check the current status | Clause 8.2.2 method steps, cited by clause number |
| ISO/TS 22317, Security and resilience, Business continuity management systems, Guidelines for business impact analysis | 2021, second edition | BIA programme and levels of analysis |
| NIST SP 800-34 Rev. 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems | May 2010, updated 11 November 2010 | Free BIA method, MTD, RTO, RPO, WRT |
Standard and licence note
Structure aligned with ISO 22301:2019 with Amd 1:2024 (clause 8.2.2) and ISO/TS 22317:2021, cited by name, edition and clause number only, and based on NIST SP 800-34 Rev. 1, a US government publication. This template is original text written for this collection and reproduces no wording, tables or definitions from the ISO documents. Check the current editions before use, including the status of the ISO 22301 revision.
Official text: ISO, purchase or licensed access: https://www.iso.org/standard/75106.html (ISO 22301:2019), https://www.iso.org/standard/88412.html (Amd 1:2024) and https://www.iso.org/standard/79000.html (ISO/TS 22317:2021), also available from national standards bodies. NIST SP 800-34 Rev. 1 is free at https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/34/r1/upd1/final.
Template licence: MIT.
関連テンプレート
AML Business-Wide Risk Assessment Template (ML/TF/PF)
Enterprise-wide ML/TF/PF and sanctions evasion risk assessment: method, inputs, inherent risk by area, control ratings, residual risk, appetite, actions
ISO・コンプライアンスBusiness Continuity Plan (BCP) Template
BCP: BIA method, prioritized activities (MTPD, RTO, RPO, MBCO), resources, scenarios, strategies, activation flow, recovery, comms, exercise programme
ISO・コンプライアンスCode of Business Conduct Template (Corporate Ethics Code)
Corporate ethics code: leadership message, decision test, speak-up channels, bribery, gifts, conflicts, competition, sanctions, records, waivers, training