Clarity Resilience

Clarity Resilience is a place to think about resilience — business continuity and its related disciplines — in a way that makes sense to me. It’s a space for working through ideas, questioning assumptions, and exploring what resilience looks like in practice, informed by experience and adjacent disciplines.

I share this thinking in the hope it’s useful to others who are trying to make sense of business continuity, risk, and organisational resilience — whether you’re new to the field or deeply experienced.

My approach - How I tend to think about resilience

I’m naturally drawn to systems thinking. I tend to start with outcomes — what an organisation is ultimately trying to protect, enable, or recover — and then work backwards to understand how the system supports that.

That means looking at the whole first, breaking it into component parts, examining the relationships and dependencies between them, and then rebuilding the picture with intention. I’m interested not just in individual elements, but in the interfaces between them: where decisions are made, where information flows, and where friction or failure is most likely to emerge.

Through my professional work in business continuity and resilience, I often see people working hard to achieve the right outcome, but clinging to processes that are quietly getting in the way. When that happens, my instinct is to keep bringing the conversation back to the outcome itself — and to ask whether the existing process is still the best way of getting there.

That isn’t always comfortable. People can be understandably protective of approaches that have worked in the past, or wary of change for its own sake. But clinging to familiar processes when the context has shifted often leads to workarounds, inefficiency, or fragility. When things start to feel clumsy, that’s usually a signal that the system itself needs to be taken apart and realigned — not patched over.

While business continuity is my core discipline, I think about resilience as a system. In practice, that means exploring how business continuity interacts with crisis management, emergency planning, communications, IT service continuity, risk, and organisational behaviours. Each discipline has its own purpose and expertise; resilience emerges in how well they work together.

Until fairly recently, I assumed this way of thinking was common. I’ve since learned it isn’t — but it explains why my work tends to focus on connections rather than silos, judgement rather than checklists, and clarity over completeness.

This site reflects that approach: making the thinking visible, showing how conclusions are reached, and recognising that context, trade-offs, and professional judgement always matter.

Why clarity matters

In resilience and business continuity, complexity is often unavoidable — but confusion isn’t.

Much of my work has been about helping organisations cut through noise, assumptions, and over-engineered approaches, and focus instead on what really matters when things go wrong: understanding impacts, making good decisions, and adapting to reality as it unfolds.

I bring over 20 years of experience working with business continuity and resilience in large, complex organisations. That experience has taught me the importance of balance — between structure and flexibility, preparedness and agility, plans and judgement.

Clarity, for me, isn’t about simplifying problems away. It’s about creating enough shared understanding to move forward with confidence.

If you’d like to explore further, you’ll find reflections and articles in the 'Clarity Library', and practical resources where they’re useful.