- Published: November 15, 2021
- Updated: November 15, 2021
- University / College: University of Utah
- Language: English
- Downloads: 35
· The results also showed asignificant negative effect for the Business Continuity Plan Testing, Auditing, and Maintenance (? = -0. 14, N. S), (proving error 3/6).· The data in the table also show anegative effect – not significant – for the Business Continuity PlanDevelopment (name) (? = -0. 08, N.
S) and thus (prove error of (hypothesis 3/5).· The results did not show the effectof the Business Impact Analysis on the efficiency of the performance of theFaculty (? = -0. 1, N. S), and thus (prove error 3/3 hypothesis).· The Project Initiation had a veryweak effect, but the effect was not significant (? = 0.
1, N. S), thus provingthe error of (hypothesis 3/1). On the other side· The results also showed asignificant effect on the efficiency of the performance of the second stage. However, this effect was negative (? = -0. 33, p <0. 01), which may indicateerror or failure in the application of the second stage in the Faculty. However, prove hypothesis 3/2),· The phases of the businesscontinuity plan affect 56% of the efficiency of the business continuity planimplementation.
The data in the table that the efficiency of the performance ofthe Faculty was more affected by stage VII (stage name) (? = 0. 79, p <0. 01)and thus (prove hypothesis 3/7).
The performance efficiency of the Faculty wasalso affected by the fourth stage (? = 0. 23, p <0. 01) and thus (hypothesis3/4).· The table (5-20) shows the phasesof the business continuity plan affect 56% of the efficiency of the businesscontinuity plan implementation.
The data in the table that the efficiency ofthe performance of the Faculty was more affected by stage VII (stage name) (? = 0. 79, p <0. 01) and thus (prove hypothesis 3/7). The performance efficiencyof the Faculty was also affected by the fourth stage (? = 0. 23, p <0. 01) andthus (hypothesis 3/4)
