Shorter and More Frequent: Making Business Continuity Exercises More Practical and More Repeatable
Executive Summary
This case study reflects a practical pilot within the British Council focused on whether shorter business continuity exercises can improve preparedness without placing the same operational burden on teams as longer formats. In many organisations, longer tabletop or simulation exercises are valuable, but they can be difficult to schedule, resource and repeat regularly. This can limit participation and reduce the overall reach of BCM activity.
In response, I piloted a shorter two-hour exercise format within parts of my region and compared it with longer exercises (4 hours +). While it may seem like a minor change, it actually required breaking down a lot of mental barriers and finding arguments that shorter tests/exercises are of similar value. The aim was not to argue that short exercises are always better, but to examine whether they can deliver meaningful learning and preparedness benefits in a more accessible format. Early results suggest that shorter exercises can generate comparable improvements in knowledge and confidence while being easier for teams to accept and complete. The main practical advantage is not only lower time and resource demand, but also greater willingness to participate. In practice, a two-hour session often feels manageable to teams, while anything significantly longer can become much harder to secure.
The emerging conclusion is that both formats have value, but longer exercises do not necessarily provide proportionately greater benefit in relation to their higher cost in time, coordination, and staff capacity.
About the Author
The British Council is the UK’s international organisation for cultural relations and educational opportunities, operating globally across teaching, examinations, education, and cultural programmes. Business continuity is relevant across a wide range of operational settings, including offices, teaching centres, exams activity, cultural and arts events and festivals and partner delivery environments.
I work as a Regional Safety and Security Advisor, supporting multiple countries across Europe, CIS and neighbouring regions. My role includes crisis preparedness, business continuity planning, risk advice and exercise facilitation. This case study is based on a practical pilot and reflects operational learning from real implementation rather than a purely theoretical model.
The Challenge
A recurring challenge in BCM is that longer exercises, while useful, can be difficult to organise consistently. They require more preparation, more staff time and greater management commitment. In a busy and resource constrained environment, this often reduces frequency and limits participation to a narrower group of people.
At the same time, organisations still need regular practice. Plans are only useful if people are familiar with them and are willing to engage with them. The challenge, therefore, was to find a format that remained meaningful but was easier to deliver, easier for teams to accept and more realistic to repeat.
The Approach / Solution
I introduced and tested a shorter tabletop exercise format of approximately two hours and used it alongside longer exercises rather than as a full replacement. The short format focused on key decision points, role clarity, escalation, communication, and practical continuity issues. The longer format allowed more detail, more injects, deeper discussion and broader reflection.
The pilot was implemented within parts of my region and evaluated through pre and post exercise feedback, knowledge checks and participant reflection. The intention was to compare practical value, not simply exercise length. The approach drew on standard BCM thinking, exercise good practice and structured post exercise review.
Results & Impact
The pilot suggests that shorter exercises can deliver meaningful gains in knowledge, confidence and engagement while being much easier to schedule and repeat. They are also more accessible to teams that would struggle to commit to a half-day or full day format.
One of the clearest practical findings was behavioural rather than purely statistical. Teams were generally far more willing to agree to a two-hour exercise than to a significantly longer one. In practical terms, this matters. A format people are willing to do regularly can, over time, strengthen organisational preparedness more effectively than a more ambitious format that is difficult to deliver.
The pilot also suggests that longer exercises are not necessarily proportionately more beneficial when measured against their higher cost in time, staffing and coordination. Their added depth can be valuable, but this does not always justify using them as the default format.
Key Success Factors
The main success factors were realism, simplicity, and acceptability. Exercises worked best when they focused on credible scenarios, clear decisions, and issues that participants could recognise from their own operational context.
A second important factor was leadership support. Even a short exercise still requires management backing and a culture that treats BCM as worthwhile rather than administrative burden – shorter and very practical tests fulfil this. Finally, the most useful approach was not to frame short exercises as a downgrade, but as a practical format with its own strengths.
Lessons Learned
The main lesson is that exercise design should reflect operational reality. In practice, there appears to be an important threshold around two hours. Many teams can accommodate this. Once an exercise becomes much longer, it is often seen as a major disruption rather than a manageable development activity.
A second lesson is that short and long exercises do different things well. Short exercises are often better for frequency, reach, repeatability, and acceptance. Longer exercises are better for depth, complexity, and extended discussion. The most practical model is therefore a mixed one.
A third lesson is that BCM becomes easier to embed when staff experience it as useful, focused, and realistic. When an exercise feels proportionate to the time required, teams are more willing to engage again.
Future Plans
My current direction is to continue using a mixed model, combining shorter and longer exercises according to context, maturity, and operational need. The short format is particularly useful for wider reach, more regular practice, and initial engagement. Longer exercises still have a place where deeper testing is needed, or the team may utilize it also as part of Team building for example.
The next step is to continue refining the balance between the two formats and to apply lessons learned across more teams within the region. Over time, this should support a more practical and sustainable BCM exercise culture.
Additional Assets
Possible supporting assets could include a simple comparison graphic showing short versus long exercise characteristics and anonymised charts summarising changes in participant confidence and perceived usefulness.
Key Takeaways
Shorter exercises can still deliver meaningful BCM value when they are well designed and well facilitated.
Their main advantage is not only lower cost (highlighting importance of indirect costs), but much higher willingness from teams to participate.
Longer exercises remain useful, but they are not automatically more beneficial in proportion to the extra time and effort they require.
A mixed model using both short and long formats may be more practical than relying on one format alone.
BCM is easier to embed when exercises feel manageable, relevant and worth the time.
Download the full supplementary document for this case study
About the author
Jan Novak
Regional Safety, Security and Business Continuity Advisor
