HADR–CPXKNOWLEDGE COMMONS
ไทยContact
Menu
Home/Knowledge/business-area-continuity
HADR foundationsApplied foundation · organisations and area coordinatorsPublic review edition

Business and service continuity across an area

Use the Bangkadi Area BCM report to examine dependencies among organisations, communities, routes and utilities.

50 estimated minutesbusiness-area-continuity · v0.1.0Updated 15 October 2026
AI-generated illustration of HADR learning and exercise, not an actual event
AI-generated learning illustration, not a record of an actual event.
A learning synthesis based on the listed sources, not yet endorsed by an expert reviewer. Activities and rubrics are proposed by this project.
Knowledge domains connected to this lesson (5)
D17 · Industrial resilience and business continuityD18 · Economy, finance, livelihoods and recoveryD10 · Transport, logistics and relief suppliesD12 · Community organization and resilienceD14 · Governance, law and public policy
Explore related ISO standards

What will you be able to do?

From outcomes to observable evidence

business-area-continuity · v0.1.0

Intended outcomes

Knowledge

Distinguish continuity management from a plan document and explain area coordination.

Skills

Trace disruption through dependencies and develop follow-up options.

Ethics

Justify priorities considering workers and communities.

Character

Coordinate assumptions and revise the plan collaboratively after an exercise.

Practise through an activity

Original project activity: assign factory, clinic, community and information-coordinator roles. Map dependencies and impacts from the scenario. Propose two options without inventing restoration times. Then introduce an unavailable alternate route. Submit a revision with verification owners and peer feedback. Assess KSEC through work products and behaviour; the five-question quiz does not replace operational testing or certify a BCP.

Collect evidence for assessment

Knowledge

A concept map and explained quiz responses.

AREA-K
Skills

A dependency map and options record with task owners.

AREA-S
Ethics

An impact table reflecting stakeholder perspectives.

AREA-E
Character

A change record, assigned owners and team feedback.

AREA-C

Project learning synthesis showing proposed outcomes, activity and evidence. This is not a university-endorsed assessment framework.

Module references:[adpc-area-bcp-2017][ddpm-plan]

Suggested preparation: HADR foundations and people-centred assistance Thailand floods 2011: interconnected impacts and recovery

Read Bangkadi as a historical case

The 2017 report concerns Area BCP around Bangkadi Industrial Park, Pathumthani. Its cover credits ADPC facilitation for NESDB with JICA support. It does not establish current system conditions. This lesson’s new scenario is not a reconstruction. Read the 2011 flood case alongside it, separating historical facts from questions that need checking in a present-day area.

Original sources: [adpc-area-bcp-2017]

A plan sits within management

Printed pp. 16–21 distinguish BCM as management from BCP as a plan document, linking Area BCM to stakeholder cooperation. Exercise: name who maintains the plan, supplies information and reviews changes. Possessing a document alone does not answer those questions. This lesson does not assess ISO conformity or adopt the report’s historical standard edition as a current requirement.

Original sources: [adpc-area-bcp-2017]

Trace dependencies beyond an organisation

Printed pp. 17–19 and 96–97 connect disruption to resources, transport and utilities, including bottlenecks affecting recovery. Original exercise: start with one service, such as delivery, and draw links to workers, roads, power and information. Identify an information owner for each link. If restoration time is unconfirmed, mark it unknown and assign verification instead of inventing certainty.

Original sources: [adpc-area-bcp-2017]

Coordinate objectives and roles

The report’s printed p. 20 addresses plan ownership and responsibilities. DDPM’s 2021–2027 plan, printed pp. 43 and 124, identifies Thai mechanisms and coordination functions. Exercise: distinguish business requests, provider information and decisions by relevant authorities. Compare effects on workers, communities and essential services, recording unresolved disagreement. An exercise proposal gives no authority to allocate utilities or direct agencies.

Original sources: [adpc-area-bcp-2017][ddpm-plan]

Use an exercise to identify improvements

Printed pp. 158–161 discuss review, exercises and tabletop limitations. Our exercise adds a report that the alternate route is unavailable. Revise options and identify conditions requiring confirmation before resumption. Submit a change record and a follow-up review with assigned owners. Discussion can reveal gaps; it does not demonstrate equipment performance, system capability or achievable restoration time.

Original sources: [adpc-area-bcp-2017]

See the process at a glance

A synthesized learning diagram. Read it alongside the lesson and original sources.

  1. Set scope

    Choose one fictional service and its internal and external stakeholders.

  2. Trace impacts

    Map dependencies, identify bottlenecks and separate facts from assumptions.

  3. Discuss options

    Compare effects on businesses, workers and communities, assigning task owners.

  4. Exercise and revise

    Receive one changed fact, submit a revision and identify what needs further testing.

Fictional learning scenario

Explore a decision

Original fictional scenario: two factories and a community clinic share a road. Factory A has backup power, but the road is closed. Factory B proposes an unchecked minor road. Providers have not confirmed restoration times. What should the team propose?

From knowledge to evidence

Original project activity: assign factory, clinic, community and information-coordinator roles. Map dependencies and impacts from the scenario. Propose two options without inventing restoration times. Then introduce an unavailable alternate route. Submit a revision with verification owners and peer feedback. Assess KSEC through work products and behaviour; the five-question quiz does not replace operational testing or certify a BCP.

CriterionProficientDeveloping
K · Conceptual scopeDistinguishes process from document and explains the area perspective.Uses BCM/BCP interchangeably without explanation.
S · DependenciesLinks services to external resources and assigns verification owners.Lists resources without tracing impacts.
E · Stakeholder effectsHears every role and explains trade-offs between two options.Prioritises only one party’s benefit.
C · Collaborative learningOwns tasks and revises collaboratively, stating remaining limits.Ignores new information or leaves follow-up unowned.

A proposed rubric for educators to adapt, not a university accreditation standard.

Check your understanding

Answer all 5 questions, then review the explanations. This score is for self-study.

1Which distinction between BCM and BCP is appropriate?
2Backup power exists, but delivery vehicles cannot enter. What should be checked next?
3What belongs in a priority discussion that considers the wider area?
4New information invalidates an option. What is suitable Character evidence?
5What remains unproven by a well-discussed tabletop?

References & further verification

Cite this module

PK-Research. (2026). Business and service continuity across an area (business-area-continuity, v0.1.0). HADR–CPX Knowledge Commons. https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/modules/business-area-continuity/

Found a correction? Contact the developerNext module