An unavailable primary data center
Exercise the recovery sequence across identity, connectivity, applications and business operations. Record what actually resumed and compare the result with approved recovery objectives.
Saudi regulatory frameworks
Saudi Central Bank
SAMA Business Continuity Management Readiness
Connect SAMA BCM readiness to business impact analysis, recovery priorities, disaster recovery implementation and tested service continuity.
Published Business Continuity Management FrameworkSources reviewed: 4 November 2026
Understand the requirement. Connect it to operations.
SAMA’s Business Continuity Management Framework addresses the organizational ability to continue and recover financial services during disruption. The Rulebook marks the framework issued under circular 381000058504 on 27 February 2017 as in force. It connects governance, business impact analysis, risk assessment, continuity planning and technology recovery. Business continuity extends beyond backups: people, facilities, suppliers, communications and decision-making all influence whether a critical service can operate.
IRIS Technology can help translate continuity priorities into infrastructure and operational recovery arrangements. A readiness gap assessment should connect business needs to recovery architecture, dependencies, runbooks and exercise evidence. Practical support may include resilience design, restoration validation and coordinated exercises. These activities illustrate an implementation approach; mandatory obligations remain those in the applicable SAMA framework and current instructions. Avoid declaring readiness solely because a disaster recovery environment exists.
Confirm applicability before choosing controls.
The Rulebook lists Banking Sector, Finance Sector, Payment Systems and Payment Services Providers, and Credit Bureaus. Confirm the institution’s current status and applicable supervisory instructions. The framework’s scope considers the full member organization, including relevant subsidiaries, personnel and third-party dependencies. Insurance-specific historical publications must be assessed separately against the current competent regulator’s requirements rather than generalized to every financial institution.
Agree the critical services, business activities, locations, technology and external services included in the review. Business impact analysis should inform recovery priorities, recovery time objectives, recovery point objectives and maximum acceptable outage. Align the scope with cybersecurity and IT governance without assuming those frameworks are interchangeable. Technical restoration and end-to-end business recovery require distinct evidence, even when both are tested during the same exercise.
Turn requirements into implementation and evidence.
| Focus area | Implementation examples | Evidence to maintain |
|---|---|---|
| Continuity governance | Identify management oversight, continuity roles and escalation authority. | Approved policies, committee records and assigned responsibilities. |
| Business impact and risk | Map critical activities, disruption consequences and service dependencies. | BIA, risk assessment and approved recovery objectives. |
| Recovery implementation | Connect business priorities to infrastructure, backups and recovery sequences. | Architecture, runbooks and validated restoration records. |
| Supplier and site dependencies | Review external support, alternative arrangements and single points of failure. | Dependency maps, supplier reviews and continuity arrangements. |
| Exercises and improvement | Test scenarios and assign findings to owners with realistic deadlines. | Exercise reports, observed limitations and corrective-action tracking. |
What this looks like in practice.
A critical supplier disruption
Review how the institution sustains its own service while a supplier is unavailable. A contract commitment is useful context, but it does not demonstrate a tested institutional workaround.
From readiness assessment to working controls.
Agree the scope, responsible owners and acceptance criteria before work begins. The approach is tailored to your systems, suppliers, operating constraints and existing evidence.
Assess and prioritize
Review applicability, current controls and evidence. Identify gaps and dependencies, distinguish design from operating effectiveness, and prioritize actions with accountable owners.
Design the improvements
Translate approved requirements into architecture, policies, processes and technical changes. Reuse effective controls while keeping national and sector mappings distinct.
Implement and validate
Configure agreed safeguards, document procedures and validate representative workflows within authorized access and change windows. Record exceptions and residual risks.
Handover and sustain
Organize evidence, transfer operating knowledge and define a review cadence. Track corrective actions as systems, services, suppliers and requirements change.
Agree concrete deliverables.
- A scope and applicability record with assumptions and responsibilities.
- A gap/risk register and prioritized remediation roadmap.
- Control mapping, architecture recommendations and operating procedures.
- An evidence register, agreed validation results and handover material.
Deliverables, depth, access and timing depend on the statement of work. This is readiness and implementation support; it does not include a promise of regulator acceptance or formal certification.
Common questions.
Is a backup strategy sufficient?
No. Backups support selected recovery activities. Continuity also depends on recoverable systems, credentials, staff, suppliers, communications and business procedures that can operate during a disruption.
Who should define recovery objectives?
Business owners should inform priorities through impact analysis, with governance review and technical input. Engineering teams then assess whether the required capability exists and what improvements are needed.
Does a successful server restore prove service recovery?
It proves a limited technical outcome. Validate applications, data, access, integrations and business transactions to determine whether the complete service meets the intended recovery objective.
Can exercises affect live services?
They can, depending on the design. Agree authorization, safeguards, change windows and stop conditions. Proportionate exercises can combine discussion-based scenarios with controlled technical validation.
What evidence should be prepared?
Bring impact analyses, risk assessments, recovery objectives, continuity plans, architecture diagrams, supplier arrangements and previous exercise results. Track unresolved limitations instead of reporting unsupported recovery claims.
Start with the official sources.
Read the linked authority publications for the binding scope, wording and applicable updates. The implementation examples on this page are practical recommendations, not a reproduction of every regulatory requirement.
General readiness and technology information, not a legal opinion, regulator endorsement or guarantee of compliance. Confirm applicability, current versions and sector directions with the competent authority and qualified advisers.
Related frameworks and requirements
Define the right scope for your organization.
Bring your services, systems, supplier dependencies and existing findings. We will help turn them into a practical assessment and implementation scope.
Discuss your readiness