Emergencies are no longer rare disruptions. They are operational realities. From cyberattacks and extreme weather events to supply chain breakdowns and infrastructure failures, institutions today face a growing range of threats that can interrupt instruction, research, housing, and essential services. The question is no longer if a disruption will occur, but whether your institution is prepared to respond and recover effectively.
According to the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 95% of emergencies are predictable, meaning organizations can anticipate and plan for most of the disruptive events they are likely to face. At the same time, higher education institutions are increasingly complex enterprises. Distributed campuses, hybrid work models, international programs, research dependencies, and interconnected IT systems make continuity planning far more intricate than it was even a decade ago. Research from the U.S. Government Accountability Office highlights how disasters have led to prolonged campus closures and financial strain across institutions, reinforcing the need for structured continuity strategies.
Yet despite these realities, many institutions still rely on static documents, outdated spreadsheets, or plans stored in shared drives that are rarely updated or exercised. A modern continuity program requires more than documentation. It requires process, ownership, visibility, and continuous improvement.
While every institution is different, effective business continuity programs typically follow a cyclical methodology: Discover, Define, Develop, and Demonstrate. Each phase builds on the previous one and repeats over time as risks evolve and organizational structures change.
The first step is identifying what truly matters.
A Business Impact Analysis (BIA) helps institutions determine:
Two core metrics emerge from the BIA process:
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) outlines similar recovery planning concepts in its contingency planning guidance, reinforcing the importance of clearly defined recovery objectives. In higher education, these metrics vary significantly. A learning management system during final exams may require an aggressive RTO. A non-critical administrative report may not. Without a structured BIA, these distinctions are often unclear.
Equally important during this phase is identifying risks - both regional (e.g., hurricanes, floods, wildfires) and institutional (e.g., single points of failure, lack of cross-training, unsupported legacy systems).
Once critical functions and risks are identified, institutions must determine how to reduce exposure and restore operations.
Mitigation strategies focus on reducing the likelihood or impact of disruption. Examples include:
Recovery strategies address what happens after a disruption occurs. They answer questions such as:
For universities, planning must account for loss of facilities, research environments, residence halls, data systems, and even key faculty members. A robust strategy accounts for people, technology, facilities, and third-party dependencies simultaneously.
With analysis and strategies in place, the institution builds structured continuity plans. A helpful way to organize these plans is through five operational stages:
Respond – Ensure human safety and immediate emergency coordination.
This structure ensures plans address both emergency response and sustained operational continuity. Emergency management keeps people safe; business continuity ensures the institution continues functioning once first responders leave.
For higher education, this distinction is critical. Campuses must maintain instruction, financial aid processing, payroll, research continuity, and student services even during prolonged disruptions.
Untested plans often fail under pressure.
Tabletop exercises (TTXs) and scenario-based simulations allow institutions to:
After each exercise, findings should be documented and plans updated accordingly. Continuity is not static - it is iterative. Organizational changes, leadership transitions, new technologies, and emerging risks require continual refinement.
Research consistently shows that organizations that exercise response and recovery plans experience shorter recovery times and reduced financial losses after incidents.
Many institutions begin continuity planning with enthusiasm but struggle with long-term sustainability. Common challenges include:
Continuity planning is inherently cross-functional. Without centralized systems and shared ownership, plans quickly become outdated. Higher education institutions that have modernized their approach often report stronger engagement and improved maintenance. For example, California State University, Monterey Bay (CSUMB) streamlined updates and improved campus-wide continuity after centralizing its plans, with 89% of plans updated by year two and annual testing becoming standard practice.
Similarly, Boston University adopted a more automated, scalable approach to continuity planning, enabling departments to maintain and update plans directly and improve usability across campus.
Sacramento State emphasized ease of implementation, flexibility, and stakeholder involvement when building comprehensive continuity plans across dozens of academic programs.
These examples reflect a broader shift: continuity programs succeed when they are collaborative, transparent, and integrated into everyday operations - not treated as one-time compliance exercises.
Higher education faces unique pressures. Institutions must protect student safety, preserve research integrity, comply with regulatory obligations, and maintain public trust - all while operating within financial constraints.
A modern continuity program provides:
Continuity is no longer simply a risk management function. It is an operational resilience strategy.
For institutions seeking to move beyond spreadsheets and static documents, purpose-built solutions can centralize plans, automate reminders, support real-time collaboration, and provide reporting insights that help leadership understand preparedness at a glance.
Kuali Ready was designed specifically for higher education institutions to simplify this process - replacing fragmented documentation with structured, collaborative, and continuously maintained continuity plans. Universities like Boston University, CSUMB, and Sacramento State have used Ready to improve engagement, streamline updates, and strengthen institutional resilience .
If your institution is reassessing its continuity strategy - or building one for the first time - you can learn more about how Kuali Ready supports business continuity planning. Preparedness does not eliminate disruption. But with the right structure, tools, and institutional commitment, it can dramatically reduce its impact.
Discover how Kuali connects the work behind administration, research, compliance, IT, and more.
Explore Kuali solutions ->.jpeg)
Explore business continuity plan examples and learn how universities ensure operational resilience with proactive strategies for crisis management and recovery.
Discover a streamlined, four-phase continuity planning approach for higher education—covering BIA, risk analysis, plan development, exercises, and maturity benchmarking—to embed resilience and streamline recovery efforts.
When colleges close, the economic, social, and educational impacts ripple through communities. Learn how business continuity planning protects campuses, students, and local economies.