Talk:Business Continuity Institute

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 August 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV dispute[edit]

I came here to find out more about the "Business Continuity Institute", after seeing it mentioned in a job description. Unfortunately, this page contains no information about what makes this institution "accredited" in any way, and what impact it has in the grander scheme of things. Instead, not only are there no sources (as per the other tag), the claims that are made are also entirely positive and read like an advert ("the name is instantly recognised as standing for good practice and professionalism").

I'd fix it, if I knew anything about this organization - unfortunately, I don't. Quark999 (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of the BCI and can confirm it is not a chartered body. It is a membership organisation made up of people usually selling or working in the business continuity field. It offers a 'qualification', based criteria they have developed. This is then awarded on completion or sometimes just attendance on courses. It far better than nothing, but not really independent and seems of late to be more about making money. I would argue that a couple of other groups are more independent and do far more, but aren't recognised by Wikipedia.

86.144.195.9 (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both previous comments. I suppose it is better than nothing, but all this group seems to be about is selling courses and grabbing money. It certainly isn't Chartered and appears to outsource all its activities to commercial companies. After having attended one of the 'courses' I was given an 'award' of letters after my name simply for staying in the room. I was then inundated with sales approaches for more courses and to upgrade my status as a 'professional' BCM consultant! Others had much the same experience. Irony is that the course didn't help much and the 'expert' trainer had limited knowledge of business and knew virtually nothing of the Public Sector.

I then found another group, a business continuity focused NGO who aren't on Wikipedia for some reason (maybe the same one), who are genuinely independent and gave us a massive amount of help for nothing.

188.28.146.6 (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]