Success in manufacturing begins with strong cybersecurity and recovery foundations

Manufacturing and distribution companies have become increasingly reliant on automated systems and interconnected technologies to drive efficiency and productivity. 

This transformation has also exposed these organizations to new and evolving cyber threats that can significantly disrupt critical business operations. 

As the rate of cybersecurity incidents rises, many companies find themselves inadequately prepared to respond effectively—potentially risking substantial financial losses and reputational damage. 

Recent years have seen a surge in operational technology-specific (OT) attacks, including ransomware targeting industrial control systems, malware designed to manipulate programmable logic controllers (PLCs), and sophisticated supply chain compromises. 

Unlike traditional information technology (IT) systems, OT environments often lack the same level of security measures and recovery planning. This disparity creates vulnerabilities that bad actors are eager to exploit, putting critical production and distribution processes at risk. 

Over-reliance on IT-centric solutions, lack of clear ownership in OT environments, insufficient business continuity planning, and minimal testing of recovery plans are common pitfalls that leave many organizations exposed to significant risk. 

To ensure that IT, OT and business leaders are prepared to respond, reduce impact, and allow operations to continue, there are several questions that organizations must be able to answer.  

Do you know the most critical operations that drive your business? How long they can be disrupted before there is a significant impact?  

Identifying your critical operations and understanding the potential impact of disruptions is a crucial first step for effective business continuity and recovery planning in manufacturing and distribution environments. 

Understanding critical processes that create value for your organization helps define what needs to be protected, what requires contingency plans, and what level of protection is required. This information is crucial for developing targeted plans, minimizing the impact of disruptions and ensuring a swift return to normal operations.  Knowing the key processes that create value allows you to assess risks and better answer questions such as how long can we tolerate down time of operations and critical technologies? These insights form the foundation of what aspects of the operation require contingency and recovery plans. 

Do you know the systems that enable your critical business operations? 

In today’s manufacturing and distribution environments, many of the most critical processes rely on a complex set of IT and OT systems. These systems often include automation equipment, applications that control operations, and various other vendor-managed technologies. The reliance on these systems introduces new single points of failure risks that can bring down operations if they become unavailable.  

The impact of automation disruption is particularly severe in many modern facilities, where manual alternatives can be impractical. One of the challenges of a manufacturer or distribution environment automating operations is you cannot have employees as easily step in to perform manual workarounds during a disruption. 

As small to mid-sized manufacturers act on the desire to automate more of their processes, they will need to recognize that new risks and points of failure have been introduced to the operation. 

This dependency on automated systems raises crucial questions about an organization's ability to continue critical operations during disruptions. If companies cannot ship products due to system failures, they risk losing customers and future revenue. Special attention should be given to systems that are single points of failure supporting crucial processes—especially those without viable business continuity plans.   

Are recovery capabilities for both IT and OT aligned with the operational needs of the business? 

As a first step to assessing recovery, organizations should evaluate their current recovery capabilities for IT and OT environments and compare them to the operational requirements of critical processes. 

If there is a gap between recovery capabilities and operational needs, it means that in the event of a disruption to critical technology, there may be a risk that the restoration process won't be completed quickly enough to prevent serious impacts on operations and the business. 

Identified gaps or uncertainties should be addressed through collaborative efforts between IT and OT owners and operations teams to further understand the current state and develop comprehensive plans to close recovery capability gaps. This requires a symbiotic relationship and constant communication between the two groups when it comes to developing recovery plans and confirming that both technological and operational perspectives are considered. 

Both groups should be sharing not only what’s important to them but also what needs to be done when something happens. Many organizations lack robust processes for validating recovery objectives, regularly testing plans, and updating strategies based on test results or real incidents. This absence of information suggests a potential blind spot in many companies’ preparedness efforts, leaving them vulnerable to unforeseen challenges during actual disruptions. 

If a disruption event occurred tomorrow, who is responsible for making operational decisions, managing communications, and recovering systems? 

The question of who is responsible for understanding the company’s level of preparation remains a common source of confusion and potential weakness in many organizations’ response capabilities. 

Teams often work in siloes believing responsibilities will be covered by someone else—when that usually isn’t the case.  A root cause of this issue is a lack of clear responsibilities and response procedures across IT and OT environments, especially where systems or applications are leveraged to support both environments. Without clear ownership around operational decisions, recovery decisions, and communications during disruptions, there can be a delay in return to normal operations.  

To limit ambiguity on responsibilities, organizations should create a cross-functional team of IT, OT, operations, and cyber leaders to align on and define incident response roles and responsibilities. Failing to do so leads to a lack of clarity of where responsibilities need to be defined. Additionally, supporting these defined responsibilities with documented procedures improves the likelihood that response will be coordinated across parties. 

The reliance on third-party vendors for critical systems adds another layer of complexity. Many organizations depend on external partners for management of robotics, specialized equipment, and other technologies crucial to their operations. But plans for working with these vendors during disruptions are often not fully thought through. Questions about who will contact vendors, how quickly they can respond, and what service level agreements are in place frequently remain unanswered. 

This gap in vendor management can significantly hinder recovery efforts during a crisis. Planning for vendor involvement in the response and clearly documenting the coordination process with them is just as essential as aligning internal roles and responsibilities. 

Conclusion

The landscape of cybersecurity threats in manufacturing and distribution environments continues to evolve, presenting unique challenges that demand a comprehensive and proactive approach to business continuity planning. As automation and interconnected technologies become increasingly central to operations, the potential impact of disruptions grows more severe. 

Organizations must recognize that traditional IT-centric response and recovery strategies are insufficient in addressing the complexities of modern OT environments. To build true resilience, companies need to clearly define critical operations and systems, establish defined roles and responsibilities across internal teams and vendors, and establish robust plans that account for the interdependencies between various technological and operational components.  

By adopting this approach to operational resilience, manufacturing and distribution companies can not only mitigate the risks posed by cyber threats but also position themselves to respond effectively to other unforeseen challenges—ultimately safeguarding their operations, reputation, and bottom line in an increasingly digital and interconnected business landscape.