There are some possible errors or wrong approaches in BC. The most common are as follows:

• No BI: There may be a BIA, but it's not complete or does not cover all the possible business-related risks.
• Not applied: Some cases are skipped and not considered; perhaps even the entire BC analysis just because it can't happen to me. As with security, all organizations need a proper BCP and all cases must be considered in some way.
• Non-involvement of business level: You cannot understand the risks and define the possible budget to avoid (or minimize) them without the C-levels.
• Technology focus: Written BC is a process, not necessarily a single technical solution. Technologies came later, and can help in some decisions, but are mostly organizational and high-level.
• Complexity: Simplicity usually pays and works. The more complex the solution or the documentation is, the most difficult it will be to implement the BCP in the proper way, and also to keep it updated.
• Correlated aspects: The BC does not include other correlated aspects, like security, maintenance and management, audit, and so on.
• Compliances: The BC does not consider compliances or is too focused on just complaints regulations.
• BCP has never been applied: BCP analysis has been done well - maybe there is even a good paper that defines BCP - but it has never been applied. It's possible to decide to ignore some risks, but at least a reasonable part of the BCP must be implemented properly.
• Too dependent on people or automation: You need a good BCP solution that is balanced with regard to how it can be automated and how it can be humanly controlled (for example, the decision to activate the DR site). It's not realistic to have something totally automated or too human dependent (in this case it would also be difficult to have a deterministic RTO).
• Not enough training or no training at all: All people should be trained, of course, with the right level of detail depending on their role.