As most IT professionals are likely well-aware, convincing upper-level management to upgrade to a new, better disaster recovery solution is not an easy task. C-level executives aren’t eager to invest money if they don’t see immediate or obvious value, and that’s often the case when it comes to a DR upgrade.

That doesn’t mean that a superior DR solution doesn’t offer value. On the contrary, this will often represent an excellent investment for the company, one that will ultimately deliver significant returns. But getting the higher-up decision-makers on board can be a difficult feat.

And, typically, that conversation will start with a simple, obvious question: “What’s wrong with our current DR?”

When that question emerges, here are some of the best points to answer with.

1. It’s not reliable enough
This is often going to be the single best answer to that inevitable question. After all, successful DR is all about providing a backup in the event of an emergency. An effective DR offering will allow a company to operate confident in the knowledge that a disaster will not put it out of business. DR should deliver complete peace of mind and dramatically reduce the risk associated with either natural or man-made disasters.

The problem with many firms’ current DR solutions is that they simply do not measure up to this standard. Outdated DR solutions may offer a degree of protection, but that alone is not enough. Businesses need DR that is completely reliable and comprehensive. If the existing solution can’t offer those capabilities, that’s a powerful argument in favor of an upgrade.

2. It’s not secure enough
Security is another key issue when it comes to DR, but this often goes overlooked and underappreciated, even within the IT department.

Speaking to TechTarget, industry expert Kevin Beaver emphasized that information security and incident response – an aspect of DR – are directly related. He pointed out that a cyberattack is technically a disaster in and of itself, one which requires DR and therefore must be considered when creating a business continuity solution.

That’s often not the case. And business decision-makers should recognize that such security is incredibly important and valuable, to the point that this alone is enough to justify a shift to a new, better approach to DR.

3. It takes too long to recover
Last, but hardly least, is the question of recovery timelines.

Obviously, everyone recognizes the importance of a speedy recovery when it comes to disasters. The question is, what is an acceptable timeline?

This will vary significantly from company to company. Some firms can go for a week without fully recovering, while others cannot accept so much as an hour without service. Similarly, some businesses need comprehensive recovery all at once while others can go some time without certain components so long as their top-priority aspects are back online ASAP.

Hopefully, the company’s current DR offering will meet these standards and enable an acceptably fast recovery. But that’s hardly a given, especially if the solution has not been updated in years.

What’s more, there’s a big difference between an “acceptable” timeline and an ideal one. The faster a company can recover from a disaster, the better. Achieving true business continuity is even better yet, ensuring complete consistency on the client side no matter what – a benefit that’s sure to sway even the most skeptical high-level decision-makers.