The Benefits of Project and Programme Management in Disaster Recovery: A Strategic Approach

Recovery planning is an essential component of disaster recovery. As such, it should be undertaken at the earliest opportunity within the initial response phase. Whilst the initial response phase relies heavily on utilising existing resource for short-term management, the complexities of long-term recovery can necessitate the formal establishment of structured programmes and projects.

Figure 1. Recovery over time (FEMA National Disaster Recovery Framework)

Short-Term Resource Allocation: Leveraging Internal Resources

In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, the urgency of response typically calls for the rapid mobilisation of resources. This approach allows for a swift reaction, utilising existing capabilities within departments to address the immediate needs of the affected community. Short-term allocation is crucial for stabilising the situation, but it is inherently limited in scope. While this approach can sustain operations for a few weeks, it is not designed for the extended demands of recovery, where more structured and sustainable efforts are required.

The Transition to Formal Programme Management

As recovery efforts progress, the limitations of relying solely on internal resources become evident. Long-term recovery involves addressing complex issues such as rebuilding infrastructure, restoring community well-being, managing the economic impact and supporting community healing. To effectively manage these challenges, the establishment of a formal programme with dedicated project management resources is recommended.

A structured programme offers several key advantages:

Coordination and Organisation: A structured approach can ensure that recovery activities are well-coordinated, preventing overlap, resource wastage and confusion. They help align efforts across various stakeholders including government, local authorities, emergency services, utility providers, infrastructure providers and the affected communities.
Governance and Assurance: A programme framework provides a clear governance structure, ensuring that recovery efforts are aligned with strategic outcomes and subject to regular oversight. This enhances accountability and facilitates transparent decision-making processes.
Benefit Realisation: By implementing formal project/programme management practices, resources can be allocated more efficiently, ensuring that recovery efforts are cost-effective and focus on delivering the desired recovery outcomes that foster community healing.
Mitigating Employee Burnout: Prolonged recovery efforts can lead to significant employee fatigue, especially for employees performing multiple roles. A formal programme structure allows for the distribution of workloads, reducing the strain on individual staff members and maintaining operational efficiency.

Recognising the Difference Between Disaster Recovery and BAU Capital Delivery Programmes

It is essential to distinguish between disaster recovery programmes and typical Business as Usual (BAU) capital delivery programmes. Disaster recovery programmes are often reactive by nature, designed to address the immediate and ongoing needs following a significant incident. They encompass a broader scope than BAU programmes, often requiring a rapid response, flexible resource allocation and the integration of multiple agencies and organisations.

Disaster recovery programmes involve both operational expenditures (OpEx) and capital expenditures (CapEx). This dual financial requirement arises from the need to address immediate operational needs (such as emergency services and temporary housing) and longer-term rebuilding efforts (such as infrastructure restoration and community regeneration).

An integrated programme that spans multiple agencies and organisations is essential for effective disaster recovery. This integration necessitates careful coordination to balance conflicting priorities and align desired outcomes. Structured governance is critical in managing these complexities, ensuring that stakeholders are working towards common goals while maintaining the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and/or priorities.

Transition to Business as Usual (BAU)

One of the key strategic benefits of establishing a formal programme is the ability to plan for the transition back to Business as Usual (BAU). As disaster recovery progresses and the immediate needs are addressed, the formal programme should gradually scale down, allowing external consultants and project management experts to hand over responsibilities to internal teams. The handover enables organisational learning, knowledge transfer and the embedment of process improvements and programme deliverables.

This transition is carefully timed to occur when the recovery requirements have reduced to a level that can be managed by internal resources without overburdening them. This approach ensures that the expertise and momentum built during the recovery phase are retained and integrated into regular operations, while also managing costs effectively by reducing reliance on external consultants as the situation stabilises.

The Importance of a Flexible and Scalable Approach

Disaster recovery is inherently dynamic, with priorities often shifting as the situation evolves. It is essential to adopt a flexible and scalable approach to recovery, recognising that the priorities within the four pillars of recovery - rebuilding the environment, community, economy and infrastructure - can change over time.

Figure 2. The Four Pillars of Recovery (Hive Infrastructure)

While governance is crucial to ensure accountability and alignment with strategic objectives, overly bureaucratic procedures can stifle progress. Flexibility in governance allows for adaptive decision-making, enabling organisations to respond effectively to the changing needs of the recovery process. The changing of priorities is inevitable within recovery operations and organisations should ensure a humanitarian approach is embraced when making decisions.

Tailoring the Response: Not All Incidents Require a Formal Programme

It is critical to recognise that each major incident is unique, requiring careful assessment and categorisation to determine the appropriate response. Not all major incidents will necessitate a formal programme. However, for those that do, the benefits of a structured programme approach are substantial.

This tailored approach ensures that resources are allocated appropriately, avoiding the unnecessary expense and effort of establishing a formal programme when a more streamlined response is sufficient. This critical evaluation is essential, as the establishment of a formal programme comes with significant costs and organisations must prioritise funding and resource challenges effectively.

Challenges

Notwithstanding the benefits of adopting a formal programme approach for disaster recovery, there are also challenges that organisations need to consider. These challenges include:

Challenge	Description
Ensuring Effective Collaboration	Disaster recovery involves diverse teams and agencies, which can lead to challenges in interoperability. For example, the recovery phase often involves stakeholders that were not involved in the response phase and may not fully understand the landscape they are working in. Ensuring that all parties can work together effectively, without duplicating efforts or missing key actions, is essential.
Maintaining Momentum Over Time	Disaster recovery can be a lengthy process, often taking months or years. Sustaining momentum and keeping all stakeholders engaged and focused on the long-term goals can be challenging, particularly as the immediate urgency of the disaster fades. This is commonly known as recovery fatigue.
Flexibility Versus Structure	Disaster recovery is a fluid process, with priorities and circumstances evolving as the situation develops. While project and programme management provide structure, they must also be flexible enough to adapt to these changes without losing sight of strategic objectives.
Overcomplication	While structured processes are essential for managing recovery, there is a risk of overloading teams with too many processes and protocols. This can lead to inefficiencies and frustration among team members who may already be operating under high stress.
Resource Constraints	After a disaster, there may be a shortage of skilled personnel who are experienced and competent in both programme/project management and disaster recovery operations.
Financial Constraints	Funding for disaster recovery often competes with other critical needs. Balancing CapEx and OpEx expenditures while ensuring that recovery projects are adequately resourced is a significant challenge. External recovery consultants can add significant value to recovery operations, but this will come at a cost.

‍

Personal Insights from Disaster Recovery Programmes

Drawing from my recent experiences in disaster recovery efforts in New Zealand and the Channel Islands, I've identified several key insights that can enhance the effectiveness of programme and project management within disaster recovery. These insights are informed by real-world challenges and successes encountered in these regions and are intended to assist future recovery programmes.

Recovery Procurement Strategy: In the aftermath of a disaster, traditional BAU procurement barriers and governance can hinder timely and cost-effective recovery. Developing a tailored recovery procurement strategy is essential to ensure that resources are mobilised quickly and efficiently, balancing the need between rapid response and governance requirements.
Recovery Guidebooks: Organisations should develop and maintain a recovery guidebook that signposts key processes and strategies for disaster recovery. This guidebook ensures that knowledge and lessons from previous disasters are retained, even as experienced leaders retire or move on, thereby enabling continuity and informed decision-making in future incidents. Guidebooks should not be prescriptive, due to the varied requirements of differing natural and man-made disasters.
Recovery and Resilience Must Be Holistic: Disaster recovery efforts must consider future capital delivery programmes to avoid unnecessary spending and ensure that recovery efforts align with long-term resilience goals. This holistic approach addresses the "return to normal service" versus "build back better" challenge, ensuring that recovery investments contribute to sustainable community development.
Business Continuity is Key: In the event of a major incident, it is common for organisations and agencies to operate beyond their usual capacity. A robust recovery operating model is crucial, including a strategy for prioritising services. This allows organisations to temporarily halt less critical services, reallocating resources to where they are most needed.
Interoperability: Project and programme management must complement existing multi agency recovery frameworks, not complicate. Whilst there are many opportunities to improve existing processes, it is imperative that workstreams are not duplicated or exacerbated. Notwithstanding, the development of joint contingency plans such as a recovery guidebook can mitigate against interoperability challenges.
Shared Learning: Learning from disasters is a critical part of the recovery process. Incident debriefs, workshops and action plans can help mitigate against future occurrences. Additionally, shared learning between programme/project management and emergency planning professionals can enhance the evolution of disaster recovery.

Conclusion

The transition from immediate response to long-term recovery is a critical phase in disaster management. While the initial utilisation of internal resources is effective for short-term stabilisation, the complexities of recovery may require a more structured approach. By standing up formal programmes and dedicated project management resources, organisations can manage recovery more effectively, reducing the risk of employee burnout, ensuring governance and accountability, achieving value for money and supporting community healing.

Moreover, this structured approach facilitates a seamless transition back to Business as Usual, where external consultants hand over responsibilities to internal teams, ensuring that recovery efforts are sustainable and embedded into everyday operations. However, it is essential to adopt a flexible and scalable approach, recognising that disaster recovery is a dynamic process with shifting priorities.

Each major incident must be carefully assessed to determine whether a formal programme is necessary, balancing the benefits against the costs and the impact on BAU operations. By doing so, organisations can navigate the complexities of disaster recovery, ensuring they are prepared to respond effectively to future major incidents, ultimately leading to stronger, more resilient communities.

The views shared within this article are the views of the author. They are in no way affiliated with any clients, colleagues and/or affiliated organisations.

Author: Ryan Hume

Hive Infrastructure (Director)