Moving a platform from an undocumented, untested recovery process to one with real runbooks, tested procedures, and ongoing SRE ownership.
Disaster recovery existed as an assumption, not a tested capability — no documented runbooks, no validated recovery time expectations, and no evidence that a real failure scenario would actually be recoverable within a timeframe the business could tolerate.
Disaster recovery and business continuity documentation was written from the ground up — covering what has to recover, in what order, and who owns each step, rather than relying on institutional knowledge that lives in one person's head.
Recovery procedures were then tested directly, not just reviewed on paper — validating that the documented process actually worked and surfacing the gaps that only show up when a recovery is attempted for real.
This work continued into an ongoing site-reliability engagement, treating operational resilience as a continuous responsibility rather than a document that gets written once and never revisited.
Recovery procedures were tested against realistic failure conditions, not assumed to work based on documentation alone — the distinction that separates disaster recovery documentation from disaster recovery capability.
Tell us your current DR posture. We'll scope a realistic assessment — documentation review, live testing, or both.