Which approach BEST mitigates risks from using reciprocal agreements as a recovery strategy?

Mitigating risks associated with reciprocal agreements as a recovery strategy relies heavily on the principles of redundancy and resilience. Ensuring geographic separation of partnering organizations is particularly effective in minimizing the risk of simultaneous disruptions affecting both organizations. For example, if two organizations are located in the same geographic area and a disaster—like a natural catastrophe—occurs, both could be incapacitated simultaneously, undermining the effectiveness of the reciprocal agreement.

By selecting partners that are geographically separate, the likelihood that both entities will be affected by the same event is significantly reduced. This geographical diversity ensures that if one organization's operations are compromised—due to flooding, an earthquake, or a localized power outage—the other can continue to function, thereby providing needed support.

The other options, while valuable components of a comprehensive disaster recovery strategy, do not directly address the inherent risk of reciprocal agreements as effectively. Regular disaster recovery exercises and conducting business impact analyses are beneficial for preparedness and understanding impacts but do not provide the same level of risk mitigation regarding shared vulnerabilities. Additionally, choosing a partnering organization with similar systems may foster compatibility but does not address the risk of concurrent disruptions. Thus, geographic separation stands out as the most robust strategy for risk mitigation in the context of reciprocal agreements.