The two exercises that would be most beneficial for the company when testing business continuity plans in the future are tabletop exercise and functional activity. The two practices are essential when planning about ways of overcoming emergencies and disasters in the future. Tabletop exercises put a special consideration on the policies, procedures, and plans that are essential in business continuity in the future (American Bar Association, 2011). A review of the aspects of coordination, notification, collection, and dissemination of information, and responsibility assignment gives tabletop exercises an upper hand when testing business continuity plans in the future. Elliott, Swartz, and Herbane (2010) stipulate that tabletop exercise is recommendable for new personnel to give them familiarity with the emerging business continuity management concepts, policies, and systems. However, the tabletop exercise is under critique due to the focus problem solving rather than spontaneous decision making. The view implies that the group can address the problem at hand but fail to make a logical and rational decision-making on the issue. Besides, the exercise has a strict time requirement stipulating that the activity should come to a conclusion when the time is up. Functional activity is preferable due to focus on realism when making a future evaluation of business continuity plans. According to Clas (2008), realism is attainable through careful designing and scripting of actual operations and field activities. Thus, the business leaders can assess individual capabilities, multiple functions, and operation functions. Additionally, a functional exercise would prepare the company for a full-scale exercise (American Bar Association, 2011). However, the exercise has shortcomings arising from real-time responses and intricate design. The two failures imply that participants have to generate real responses from other players as well as make a careful scripting and sequencing of messages. I would like to support the comments of a colleague on a full-scale exercise by stipulating that it resembles functional activity through the realism feature. The practice places participants in the actual situations at hand. Thus, giving them a proper glimpse of future events in the business continuity plans. A distinguishing feature of a full-scale exercise is the extra demands on experience and expertise of personnel who are participating in the activity (Elliott, Swartz, & Herbane, 2010). Further, I would like to disagree with the comment stipulating on the less need for confidentiality when preparing exercises. It is important to note that privacy in the exercise team is very crucial. The team members should act as agents and should not reveal any insider information. In that way, there is a protection on the integrity of the exercise and due diligence. To sum up, tabletop exercise and functional exercise are important for a company when evaluating business continuity plans in the future. Tabletop exercise puts a special consideration on policies and strategies that promote business continuity in future while giving new personnel a familiarity with emerging issues. In contrast, a functional exercise focuses on realism through designing and scripting of actual operations.