What 109 Risk and Resilience Professionals Say About Coordinated Response

When disruption hits, leaders need more than a plan to follow. They need a clear view of what is happening, confidence in the information in front of them, and a coordinated way to make decisions across the business. 

Fusion Risk Management and OCEG recently surveyed 109 resilience and risk professionals on how their organizations respond in those early, high-pressure moments.  

The survey responses point to substantial gaps in executive visibility, response coordination, and post-incident learning – and show where many organizations are beginning to invest to strengthen cross-functional response capabilities. 

35% Can Build a Shared Picture Within an Hour, but Only With Real Effort 

The first question asked how long it typically takes executives to get a clear, shared picture when disruption occurs.  

Of those surveyed:  

• 23% said they have real-time visibility 
• 35% said they can assemble that shared picture within an hour – but only with real effort 
• 20% said it takes hours or more because information remains fragmented 
• 22% had not yet experienced a major disruption 

This is encouraging in one respect: 58% of respondents can establish a shared view within the first hour. 

But an hour can still be a long time when critical services, customers, revenue, or regulatory obligations may be affected. The question is not only whether teams can build a shared view, but how quickly they can do so and whether they can reduce that delay further. 

If teams must manually pull information from disconnected systems, chase down updates, or reconcile competing reports, they are spending valuable time creating the context leaders need to act.  

A stronger operational resilience program helps teams understand which business services are affected, what dependencies are involved, and where decisions need to be made, reducing the effort required to establish a reliable view when condiions change. 

28% of Organizations Do Not Yet Know What Will Slow Them Down 

When asked what is most likely to slow response in the first hour of a crisis, the largest group, 28%, selected “Honestly, we’re not sure.” 

That uncertainty is notable. It suggests that some organizations may not yet have enough experience, testing, or cross-functional visibility to identify where their response process is most likely to break down. 

The remaining responses were spread across several familiar challenges: 

• 20% cited separate, uncoordinated team playbooks 
• 20% cited response plans that were never stress-tested 
• 20% cited data or reports they could not fully trust in the moment 
• 12% cited unclear decision-making authority 

There is no single barrier behind delayed response. For some teams, the issue is fragmented plans. For others, it is data confidence, testing, or governance. That is why readiness assessments and scenario exercises matter. They help teams surface the constraints that may not be visible until an actual incident is underway. 

Business continuity and crisis and incident management programs should give teams a way to test both the plans themselves and the decision-making process around them.  

Can leaders quickly answer four critical questions: What’s impacted? What happens next? What is the financial exposure? What should we prioritize? Those questions are easier to answer before the first hour of a real disruption. 

Only 39% Consistently Turn Lessons Learned Into Updated Plans and Controls 

The poll also looked at what happens after an incident.  

39% of respondents said lessons learned are systematically built into updated plans and controls.  

But 45% described a weaker feedback loop:  

• 26% said follow-through after debriefs is inconsistent 
• 10% said lessons end up in reports few people revisit 
• 9% said their organization moves on and hopes the issue does not happen again 

Finally, 16% claim they haven’t yet experienced a real incident to learn from. 

A post-incident review is valuable only if it leads to action. That can mean updating plans, clarifying ownership, improving data sources, adjusting controls, or incorporating new scenarios into exercises.  

Without that follow-through, organizations may identify the right lessons but remain exposed to the same problems in the next event. 

Connecting incident findings back to risk management and resilience planning creates a more useful cycle: identify the issue, understand its business impact, improve the response, and test whether the change works. Each incident can also inform future scenarios, helping teams validate whether they are better prepared before the next disruption occurs. 

57% Are Investing in, or Discussing Investment in, Coordinated Response 

The final question asked whether organizations are investing in coordinated, cross-functional response capabilities beyond individual team playbooks. 

57% of respondents said they are either actively investing or discussing investment: 

• 23% already have dedicated budget 
• 34% are in discussions but have not yet secured funding 
• 19% did not know their organization’s investment posture 
• 24% said investment was either deprioritized or had not yet been considered 

These results suggest that coordinated response is becoming a clearer priority, even if organizations are at different stages of maturity. Some are building the business case. Some are already funded. Others may first need to understand where their most significant response gaps are before deciding what to address. Want to know where you stand?  

The Results Point to One Shared Response Challenge: Connection 

The poll findings point to a practical challenge for resilience leaders: plans, data, people, and decisions need to come together when disruption occurs. 

Organizations do not need to solve every readiness gap at once. But they do need to understand where visibility is fragmented, where decision authority is unclear, and whether lessons from incidents are changing how the business prepares for the next one. 

The organizations best positioned to respond are building that connective capability before a disruption forces it. They are making it easier for teams to see what matters, act with confidence, and carry what they learn forward.