OPINION: Convergence in the modern incident management family

Article content

According to the U.S. National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), the United States accounted for 59 per cent of the $16.66 billion in global cyber insurance premiums written in 2023.  

Article content

These figures speak clearly of the value at stake and they continue to rise year after year.  

Article content

In our experience, a significant portion of this underwriting has rested on unstable ground. Risk assessments were often declarative, with limited opportunities for independent verification. Control maturity was assumed rather than demonstrated. Beyond producing an incident response plan, few organizations could show how they would actually coordinate decisions, preserve evidence or communicate effectively across internal and external teams during a live event.  

Article content

This lack of structured readiness has led to prolonged investigations, delayed reporting, strained collaboration and higher payouts when risks materialized. Insurers, in turn, have responded by shifting more of the burden onto clients through narrower coverage terms and rising premiums.  

Article content

Another often overlooked consequence of difficult incident response cases is the human toll. Employee morale, burnout and turnover (especially within IT, legal and communications teams) can degrade internal cohesion long after the crisis is over. These indirect impacts are frequently underestimated, yet they affect organizational health in very direct and lasting ways.  

Article content

Article content

The global picture is escalating  

Article content

The World Economic Forum, in its Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2024, reports that 72 per cent of business leaders observed a rise in cyber threats over the past year. These include ransomware attacks, supply chain compromises and financially motivated extortion. The scope of cybercrime continues to expand. It affects not just digital infrastructure, but also trust, compliance, revenue and public confidence. Some estimates cited by the WEF place the global cost of cybercrime above $10 trillion annually by 2025. The precise figure matters less than the trend. These numbers exceed the GDP of most countries. Cyber events are no longer isolated technical failures. They are systemic risks to business and governance.  

Article content

Practice prepares performance  

Article content

Crisis coordination cannot be invented in the moment. It must be designed in advance and tested under realistic conditions.  

Article content

Crisis simulations and tabletop exercises should mirror the workflows used in live events. Preparation must go beyond checklists. It should reflect how teams document facts, assign responsibility, communicate in real time and make defensible decisions under pressure.  

Article content

Article content

Well-rehearsed structures build clarity and confidence. They also reveal weak points in communication, authority and coordination long before those weaknesses are exposed by a real incident.  

Article content

Healing through convergence  

Article content

The current landscape demands purposeful and repeatable coordination. The complexity of today’s incidents has exposed the limits of disconnected efforts and loosely aligned teams. Without a shared and structured framework that empowers stakeholders across the response ecosystem, the legacy wounds of past incidents will remain unhealed. These include technically isolated actions, fragmented collaboration, unclear priorities, slow recovery and inconsistent reporting.  

Article content

Convergence is the necessary cure. It reduces friction, aligns decision-makers, and brings operational threads into focus. When implemented with care, it turns incident management into a discipline that is effective, efficient, cost-aware and strategically valuable.  

Article content

Convergence requires both human commitment and enabling structure.  

Article content

First, it depends on critical human factors. Goodwill, communication and organizational empathy are absolutely foundational. Each participant brings valid goals and constraints. Understanding and respecting those differences is what makes collaboration functional. Now in smaller incidents, this alone may be sufficient.