Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Planning for Disaster is not just Disaster Planning
The Need for Museum Business Continuity Planning and Resilience Development as Highlighted by the SARS-CoV2 Pandemic
Christine A. McKinnon
A Capstone in the Field of Museum Studies for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies
Harvard University Extension School
March 2021
Author’s Statement:
I enrolled in the Museum Studies program in the fall of 2018 as a neophyte, thinking a museum job would make a rewarding second career. But what could I bring to a museum? I don’t have the expertise to be a curator, the personality to do development, or the public speaking skills to be an educator. During the “Introduction to Museums” class, I paid close attention to the different aspects of operating a museum, waiting for one that would speak to me, complementing my experience and giving me a path forward as I progressed through the program. It finally came during a lecture on museum disaster planning. This I could do! With a military background and experience coordinating with first responders, I understood the concepts and importance of this work. It was my intention going into this capstone project to write a series of case studies of museum disasters to serve as teaching tools for museum professionals.
That didn’t happen. Instead, when the pandemic came to Boston and everything ground to a halt, I found myself watching institutions I have enjoyed visiting my entire adult life struggle to adapt to the new reality. While doing the initial research for this project, I came across an article by Amanda Benson, “Recovering From Natural Disasters: Helping Museum Employees Return To Workplace Normalcy,” in which business continuity planning figured prominently. It occurred to me that while the museum world has recognized the importance of disaster planning, the pandemic brought into sharp relief the importance of business continuity planning and the fact that museums have not yet recognized the value of developing such plans as widely as they have disaster planning. There was an opportunity to explore an issue of importance to the museum world developing in real time and with real consequence.
Both this capstone and the program in general have been remarkably rewarding experiences for me. I am grateful to have studied under so many passionate and engaging instructors and to have met so many interesting classmates. I would like to thank Museum Studies Program Director Katherine Burton Jones for her flexibility in accepting my last-minute course-correction as well as her guidance and good humor throughout this process, as well as Dr. Christopher Tuckley of Jorvik Viking Centre for his generosity with his time and for sharing Jorvik’s experience. I would like to dedicate this capstone to my husband, Bob, whose support and encouragement have meant everything to me, and to our blind, formerly feral cat, Lewis, who has mastered the art of Zoom-bombing classes, making some fans in the process.
Table of Contents:
i
Introduction 1
Museum Disaster Planning 13
From Museum Disaster Planning to Business Continuity Planning 16
Business Continuity Planning History 17
Comparison of Museum Disaster and Business Continuity Plans 22
Resilience in Museums 22
Case Study: Jorvik Viking Centre 29
Discussion 32
Conclusion 34
Appendix A 35
Appendix B 38
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Relationship between Business Continuity Planning, Disaster Planning, and Intangibles, Contributing to Resilience 34
Figure 2. “Business Impact Analysis Worksheet.” Business Impact Anaysis Worksheet, Ready.gov, 2020, www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/business-impact-analysis-worksheet.pdf 37
ii
Introduction
Business continuity planning should be considered a best practice in addition to museum
disaster planning, enabling museums to manage the sudden, devastating impact a crisis can have
on its fiscal health and ability to carry out its mission and operations. Museum disaster planning
has been considered a best practice for at least the last decade (National Standards 44), however;
the 2020 pandemic has highlighted that business continuity planning is a natural and necessary
complement to museum disaster planning. Emma Dadson defines business continuity as “…the
ability of an organization to respond to incidents so that any disruption caused is minimized to a
predetermined acceptable level” (193). This is in contrast to disaster planning, in which the
primary focus is on mitigating and responding to risks to the collection (“3.3 Emergency
Planning”). While the SARS-CoV2 virus does not pose a threat to collections, the disruptions it
has caused in the economy and society have impacted museums’ abilities to operate and fulfill
their mission. Business continuity planning, like disaster planning, is a tool that will help
museums build the resiliency to face future crises.
When news of the outbreak of a novel virus in China was first reported in late 2019,
nobody could foresee the way in which it would completely alter life and society. Museums were
confronted with a myriad of challenges. The forced closure of museum buildings to prevent the
spread of SARS-CoV2 and widespread stay-at-home orders meant museum managers had to
figure out on the fly how museum staff would work from home, how they would meet their
mission without access to the collection and educational facilities, and how they would manage
the loss of revenue from ticket sales and other events. These logistical and fiscal shocks will
likely continue long after the virus is contained as a result of probable changes in visitor
1
preferences and pandemic-caused economic challenges that will test museums’ efforts to
generate revenue and use their facilities to the fullest. Though the pandemic is a disaster,
mitigating its effects will come not from a traditional disaster plan, but rather from a business
continuity plan. These challenges and others will require museums to think carefully about their
operations during the pandemic, finding the balance between remaining fiscally viable and
operating safely.
Effects of the Pandemic on Museums
The pandemic’s impact was immediate and severe. For example, the New England Aquarium
closed for 18 weeks when the virus reached Boston, significantly reducing Aquarium ticket sales
and event revenue that represented 80% of its budget (Spruill). Though its budget was critically
reduced, the Aquarium still had to feed and care for over 20,000 animals (Spruill). Other
museums were similarly stricken. Laura Lott, President and CEO of the American Alliance of
Museums (AAM), estimated that as of March 2020, American museums were collectively losing
U.S. $33 million per day (“Museums Included”).
An AAM survey of 760 museums conducted in June 2020 found this dire situation was
widespread within the museum world. According to the AAM:
The survey results document extreme financial distress in the museum field. One-third
(33%) of respondents were not confident they would be able to survive 16 months
without additional financial relief, and 16 percent felt their organization was at significant
risk of permanent closure. The vast majority (87%) of museums have only 12 months or
less of financial operating reserves remaining, with 56% having less than six months left
2
to cover operations. Forty-four percent had furloughed or laid off some portion of their
staff, and 41 percent anticipated reopening with reduced staff (“Snapshot”).
It is important to remember these responses represent the landscape as of June 2020—
still in the earliest stages of the pandemic. While museums have since been able to reopen with
limited capacity and strict protocols, these modest gains could be lost as winter approaches and
infection rates likely spike, as pandemic fatigue coupled with increased indoor activity create an
environment conducive to the spread of the virus. Such losses could push the most vulnerable
museums past the point of recovery and push other museums into a more precarious position.
Government Relief The serious picture the AAM survey paints comes despite an infusion of government funds
intended to keep small businesses and cultural institutions and their employees afloat. After two
rounds of relief funding from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,
the first to support the health care system and the second for individuals, Congress passed the
third round of the CARES Act on 27 March 2020 (“Covid-19 Advocacy”). The CARES Act
provided $2.2 trillion in aid for small businesses, non-profits, families, and state and local
governments (“The CARES Act Works for All Americans”). Of this amount, $50 million was
designated for museums and libraries to be distributed by the Institute of Museum and Library
Services (IMLS). An additional $75 million was designated for the National Endowment for the
Humanities (NEH) (Library Recovery Funding Summary) of which $30 million would be
distributed to state humanities councils and the remaining $45 million would be distributed via
competitive grants to “at-risk humanities positions and projects” (“CARES Act Arts and Cultural
Provisions” 2). Additionally, another $75 million was designated for the National Endowment
3
for the Arts (NEA), with $30 million to be distributed to state and regional arts agencies and
organizations and the remaining $45 million to be distributed via competitive grants to eligible
non-profit organizations (“CARES Act Arts and Cultural Provisions” 2).
Under the CARES Act, two loan programs were available to museums and other non-
profits through early August 2020: the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the Expanded
Economic Disaster Injury Loan (EIDL) (“Advocate for Museums”). The PPP enabled museums,
other non-profits, and small businesses to borrow up to $10 million to cover payroll, operations,
and debt service, with the possibility of loan forgiveness (“Finding Financial Relief ”). These
loans allowed museums to keep staff on the payroll or recall furloughed employees at least for a
period of time (Kinsella).
While museums benefited from these government programs, the programs were not
managed effectively, PPP in particular causing controversy when it was discovered that
businesses with more than 500 employees received loans (Capps). Following the initial outcry,
applicants found it increasingly difficult to get a PPP loan due to long processing times (Capps).
The program ended in early August 2020 and another round of stimulus has yet to be passed as
of December 2020. Despite the short-term benefit the CARES Act and PPP may have had for
museums, the aid was ad hoc and finite. Future government aid cannot be assumed during the
course of the current pandemic, and importantly, it cannot be assumed for future pandemics or
other large-scale disasters.
Business Interruption Insurance
Museums will likely not be able to count on insurance covering their losses during future
pandemics and will also likely find their premiums increased as a result of the current pandemic.
4
Many museums and other arts, cultural, and entertainment groups, such as movie theatres and
restaurants, are engaged as of this writing in a struggle with their insurers for business
interruption coverage (Elehalde-Ruiz “Lawsuit”, Brady, Jacobs). Business interruption insurance
covers lost income and other expenses if a “business is forced to close due to ‘physical loss or
damage’ from a covered peril” and is often bundled with commercial property insurance
(Ramnath 1). Normally this assumes physical damage to the property, such as a fire or flood that
prevents the business from operating (Ramnath 2). However, the pandemic has called into
question the definition of physical damage and when to invoke the “civil authority clause”
contained in most business interruption policies, which covers income lost as a result of
government-mandated closure (Ramnath 2). An example of the civil authority clause is the April
2015 curfew the city of Baltimore imposed in anticipation of unrest following the funeral of
Freddie Gray, which forced restaurants and bars to close early and thus lose income (Ramnath 2).
Whether the courts will extend this logic to the government-mandated closures the pandemic
caused remains to be seen.
As early as April 2020, restaurants in Chicago, Illinois were challenging their insurers to
settle business interruption claims (Elejalde-Ruiz “Business Owners”) and by early August 2020,
42 plaintiffs, mostly restaurants, filed a class-action lawsuit in Chicago against 18 insurance
companies (Elejalde-Ruiz “Lawsuit”). The lawsuit “…alleges the businesses had their claims
denied even though they ‘incurred direct physical loss and damage’ and have been ‘rendered
physically nonfunctional’ as a result of the mandated closures and restrictions” (Elejalde-Ruiz
“Lawsuit”). Celebrity chefs such as Thomas Keller and Wolfgang Puck have also called upon the
federal government to compel insurance companies to pay out, and Keller has filed a high-profile
5
claim (Lalley). In June 2020, arts organizations in the United Kingdom, including museums and
major art galleries, filed a class-action lawsuit on the same grounds (Brady) and in the late
summer of 2020 the Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania, which operates the Senator
John Heinz History Center in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, sued its insurer after its insurer rejected its
claim for business interruption insurance (Ove). The insurer rejected the claim on the grounds the
center was not physically damaged as a result of the pandemic, but the center countered that it
suffered losses of over U.S. $150,000 as a result of its closure, canceled weddings, and other
events directly caused by the impact of the virus on the property (Ove).
For their part, insurance companies argue that pandemics are not covered because losses
due to viruses are specifically excluded from most policies, the result of the 2002 - 2003 severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak (Ramnath 2). Following this outbreak, the
Mandarin Oriental Hotel sued its insurer for pandemic-related business interruption losses and
received a payout of $16 million (Ramnath 2). As a result of this case, insurance companies
generally include language excluding virus-related closures from their business interruption
policies (Ramnath 2). Additionally, insurers argue that the scope of the claims could render them
insolvent; in mid-April small businesses were claiming losses of between $255 - $431 billion per
month while insurers took in monthly premiums of approximately $6 billion per month
(Elejalde-Ruiz “Business Owners”). Put another way, the insurance industry has approximately
$800 billion in equity, so even several months of payments could lead to insolvency (Ramnath
3). David Sampson, president and CEO of the American Property Casualty Insurance
Association, argued simply that “pandemic outbreaks are uninsured because they are
uninsurable” (Elejalde-Ruiz “Business Owners”).
6
These cases remain to be decided, but regardless of outcome, their impact will be felt for
years to come. If the plaintiffs prevail, insurance companies could find themselves struggling to
remain solvent. At a minimum, if these suits find in favor of the plaintiffs, the issue of whether a
virus can cause physical damage will still likely need to be determined by the precedent set in the
jurisdiction in which a claim is made, adding an element of unpredictability to what should be a
stabilizing asset; in some jurisdictions, courts have already ruled that the presence of toxic gases
is not physical damage, while others have found the opposite (Ramnath 3). In any event, future
premiums for business interruption insurance will likely rise, perhaps beyond what museums and
other non-profits can afford. If the insurers prevail, the claimants, including museums, may find
themselves unable to weather the economic upheaval the pandemic has caused.
Challenges of the Post-Pandemic World
Those museums that survive the pandemic will likely find themselves in a very different world
post-pandemic. Museum-goers may be reticent to return to crowded blockbuster exhibits,
bustling cafes, or crowded after-hours events—all traditionally important revenue generators for
museums. Visitors may expect fewer people in the galleries, and access to intimate installations
such as Yayoi Kusama’s popular mirror rooms could be limited both as a result of state and local
regulations regarding visitor capacity and lingering visitor wariness about congregating in
confined spaces. Such changes will constrain museums’ abilities to rely on ticket sales and event
revenue as a major source of funding operating costs. Additionally, the pandemic has thrown into
sharp relief the precarious state of some museum employees as many workers have been
furloughed or laid off, even as the directors and senior staff at major institutions receive six- or
seven-figure salaries (McCambridge). These disparities have led to growing support for
7
unionization and calls for reform, building upon a trend that predates the pandemic and has
culminated with the unionization of staff at museums such as the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston
and the Philadelphia Museum of Art (Gay). Museums may find themselves having to provide
employees with higher salary and benefits packages to keep and retain talent, during a time when
they will be at a financial disadvantage, as illustrated by the Baltimore Museum of Art’s
controversial and ultimately canceled plan to auction works from its collection in part to work
toward pay equity for its staff (Jackson).
Business Continuity Planning and Disasters
A business continuity plan (BCP) would help museums proactively address the financial,
logistical, and personnel issues they could face in an emergency in real time, rather than
undertake an improvised response as museums have during the current pandemic. Though the
pandemic has highlighted the importance of a BCP for museums, having one in place is
important during any disaster a museum traditionally faces, such as fire, flooding, or
earthquakes, to name only a few. Just as the pandemic has done on a global scale, such localized
disasters can result in a sudden and prolonged loss of public access to the collections, work
space, and revenue, among other challenges, necessitating a plan to continue operations within
the limits of the disaster.
During hurricane Katrina numerous museums and historic homes in Mississippi and
Louisiana were damaged or destroyed. The Maritime and Seafood Industry Museum in Biloxi,
Mississippi was destroyed and only reopened almost nine years later after building a new
museum on the site (Jones 1). Also in Biloxi, the George Ohr Arts and Cultural Center, then
home to the Ohr Museum was destroyed and the Ohr-O’Keefe Museum under construction was
8
badly damaged, delaying its planned opening to 2010 (“O’Keefe Museum History,” “Museums
Blasted”). The Audobon Aquarium of the Americas in New Orleans, Louisiana lost all its fish,
and other New Orleans museums and historical sites including the Presbytere, the Cabildo and
the Old U.S. Mint received “moderate to severe” wind damage (Pyle). Similarly, during
hurricane Maria museums in Puerto Rico (and other islands in the Caribbean), including the
Museum of Contemporary Art of Puerto Rico, the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture, and the
Museum of Puerto Rican Art suffered damage and threats to the collection not just from the
storm, but also from the resultant, months-long power outages (Cuniffe). The Jorvik Viking
Centre in York, England also was forced to close for over a year following a disastrous flood in
December 2015. These examples illustrate how a BCP can complement the disaster plan, the
latter providing a strategy for dealing with the disaster and its immediate aftermath, and the
former providing a strategy for continuing operations during the crisis and recovery periods. This
two-pronged approach, addressing both disaster and recovery can help museums develop
resiliency in normal times to be drawn upon in times of crisis and recovery.
Business Continuity Plan Usage beyond Disaster Response
A BCP’s utility is not limited to disaster response. Other business-related crises, such as the loss
of information technology (IT) infrastructure through a virus or ransomware could require
implementation of a BCP. A disaster happening outside the museum that requires it to shut down
even though it does not threaten the building or collection, for example, localized protests, civil
unrest, or a water main break, could also require a BCP. Similarly, a BCP might be necessary
during public relations or brand controversies that result in a loss of revenue through boycott or
donor rescission. The growing popular criticism of accepting donations from controversial
9
donors such as the Sackler family or global energy companies are examples of issues that could
affect the perception of a museum’s brand and if mishandled, could result in a business crisis
requiring implementation of a BCP (Harris).
Disaster Planning vs. Business Continuity Planning
As important as a BCP could be for a museum, it is not yet considered a best practice as museum
disaster planning is. In 2008 the AAM included risk management for collections in its National
Standards and Best Practices (44). Despite this, the Heritage Health Information Survey found
as of 2019 that fewer than half of museums had disaster plans (“Heritage Health Information
Survey”). This is a relatively low figure, especially considering how the field has for decades
recognized its importance and much has been written on the topic. Museums may go without a
disaster plan because they believe they do not have the resources or personnel to design and
implement one, they believe the plan has to be overly complex and are intimidated by the
process, feel that relying on insurance is sufficient, or simply hope one is never needed.
Even fewer museums have business continuity plans. Amanda Benson, of the University
of Washington, found that as of 2017, less than 14% of mid-sized, California museums had BCPs
(179). This could be in part for the same reasons museums do not have disaster plans: a belief
that planning for low-probability/high impact events is a waste of time; discomfort with or lack
of understanding of the business aspect of museum management; or a belief that government,
donors, or other benefactors will come to the rescue during times of crisis. It could also be in part
because until recently, the business aspect of managing a museum has not been given the same
consideration within the museum world as the curatorial aspect. Jennifer Donnelly notes that:
10
In any museum, a dichotomy exists between responsibilities directly relating to the
objects in the collection and those dealing with the business of managing an institution.
“Art” activities include curating exhibitions, education and outreach, research, and
conservation. “Business” tasks include overseeing contract management, policy
development, budget planning, financial control, fundraising and grant development, and
income-producing activities such as concessions, fees, and retail (2).
She goes on to note that as of 2010, “amongst current directors of major United States museums,
educational backgrounds are almost unanimously in art history” (2). This suggests that disaster
planning, concerned in large part with collection care, comes naturally to museum leaders,
whereas recognition of the importance of the business aspects of museum management are a
more recent development.
Resilience
Developing a business continuity plan in addition to a disaster plan will strengthen the resilience
of the museum, an unstated, but central tenet to both museum disaster and business continuity
planning. Ohio State University’s Joseph Fiksel et al. define resilience as “the capacity of an
enterprise to survive, adapt and grow in the face of turbulent change” further noting “resilience
goes beyond mitigating risk; it enables a business to gain competitive advantage by learning how
to deal with disruptions more effectively than its competitors and possibly shifting to a new
equilibrium” (82). Though written in the context of for-profit business with its supply chain
concerns, the definition holds true in the context of museum-as-business. By having a business
continuity plan in place as well as a disaster plan, museum leaders can take the next step of
11
developing resilience in their organization during times of stability, recovering faster and maybe
even stronger in times of crisis.
Areas of Discussion
To understand the importance of business continuity planning for museums, an understanding of
current best practices in museum disaster planning and how they came to be is helpful. To that
end, this paper will begin with an overview of museum disaster planning—the history of its
development, as well as a discussion of the elements that go into it. The paper will then discuss
business continuity planning, the history of its development as well as a discussion of the
elements that go into it, followed by short case studies describing how Nissan navigated a
disaster through business continuity planning and providing an example of a reputational crisis
The Home Depot experienced. As elements of museum disaster planning and business continuity
planning overlap, these case studies will be followed by a comparison of the two types of
planning. The concept of resilience—though trendy—is important, and a discussion of resilience
and the utility of fostering resilience will be discussed. The paper will then provide a case study
of the Jorvik Viking Centre in York, England, as an example of a museum whose resilience
enabled it to survive a 16-month closure following a catastrophic flood, an experience which has
helped it to weather the current pandemic. Finally, the paper will offer a template of a business
continuity plan tailored for museums and suggest areas for future study. Not all museums will
survive this pandemic; a goal of this paper is to provide insights that will help museums be better
positioned to survive the next disaster.
12
Museum Disaster Planning
To understand why business continuity planning makes sense as a best practice in
addition to disaster planning, this paper discusses each in turn, starting with disaster planning.
Despite increasing awareness of disaster planning as a separate discipline from conservation
throughout the latter third of the twentieth century and beginning of the twenty-first, museums
were slow to develop and implement disaster plans. In December 2005 Heritage Preservation, in
partnership with the Institute of Museum and Library Services, published “A Public Trust at
Risk: The Heritage Health Index Report on the State of America’s Collections.” This was the
first survey to examine the state of collections in the United States and its findings were
concerning. According to the report:
One of the most alarming Heritage Health Index statistics is that 80% of collecting
institutions do not have an emergency or disaster plan that includes collections, with staff
trained to carry it out. Because of this, more than 2.6 billion items are at risk. Only 26%
of institutions have copies of vital collections records stored off-site in case of
emergency. It is essential that a collecting institution experiencing a disaster have a
record of its holdings (“About the Heritage Health Index”).
This report garnered significant attention, both in the museum/library/archives world,
where 25,000 reports were distributed, and in the press (Overbeck Laise). When the Heritage
Health Index Survey’s report was published in 2005, the experiences of Hurricane Katrina were
still fresh in people’s minds and by at least 2008 the AAM had designated museum disaster
planning a best practice (44). Even as the importance of museum disaster planning has been
13
recognized and codified as a prerequisite for AAM accreditation, the 2014 “Heritage Health
Information Survey” found that 58% of institutions still did not have a disaster plan.
Development of Museum Disaster Planning
Museum disasters are as old as museums, but through the late twentieth century most have been
dealt with in an ad hoc basis. According to Thomas Kelleher, historian and curator of mechanical
arts at Old Sturbridge Village, in 1955 Hurricane Diane caused extensive damage to the museum,
located in Sturbridge, Massachusetts. The hurricane destroyed several buildings and threatened
others, including a covered bridge that was knocked off its abutments. During Hurricane Gloria
in 1985, museum staff hurriedly made ad hoc preparations before the storm and reacted to the
damage after the storm. Despite these experiences (and in keeping with the standards of the day),
Old Sturbridge Village did not develop a disaster plan until the 1990s.
In 1958, the Museum of Modern Art in New York suffered a devastating electrical fire,
when a drop cloth caught fire during repairs to the museum’s air conditioning. The museum
quickly filled with smoke and several people were trapped on the upper floors. Staff managed to
save most of the works, evacuating some by passing them from person to person, but while the
fire was put out after less than an hour, it killed one worker, injured at least 25, and and
destroyed three works - two panels of Monet’s “Waterlilies” and Jackson Pollack’s Number 1.
The fire led to the creation of MoMA’s conservation lab, but did not result in standardizing
disaster response (“MOMA on Fire”). Similarly, the catastrophic 1966 flood in Florence was
addressed in an ad hoc manner by the institutions affected and resulted in advances in
conservation, but not disaster planning (Holmes 3).
14
A review of a bibliography on disasters, compiled by Walter Henry of the Stanford
University Libraries in 1988, and covering a period from the mid-1960s to the late 1980s,
showed that approximately forty percent of the citations discussed conservation techniques and
twenty-five percent discussed disaster planning. This bibliography demonstrates the growing
awareness of the importance of risk assessment and mitigation as complementary to salvage and
restoration. In 1978, M.S. Upton, an Australian entomologist, published Disaster Planning and
Emergency Treatments in Museums, Art Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Allied Institutions. As
Henry’s bibliography illustrates, interest in museum disaster planning as a separate function from
conservation grew during the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s.
Elements of a Museum Disaster Plan
According to the AAM, a museum disaster plan should include the following:
preparedness and response plans for all relevant emergencies and threats (natural,
mechanical, biological, and human); addresses the needs of staff, visitors, structures, and
collections; Specifies how to protect, evacuate, and recover collections in the event of a
disaster; includes evacuation routes and assembly areas for people; assigns individual
responsibilities for implementation during emergencies; lists contact information for
relevant emergency and recovery services; includes floor-plans; bears date of last
revision (“Disaster Preparedness”).
These elements are necessary to protect life and the collection, but do not address how the
museum will continue to operate in the face of disasters or disruption; this is the purpose of the
business continuity plan.
15
From Museum Disaster Planning to Business Continuity Planning
In the “Facilities Managers Desk Reference,” Jane Wiggins defines business continuity
planning as:
…a holistic management process that identifies potential impacts that threaten an
organisation and provides a framework for building resilience and the capability for an
effective response that safeguards the interests of its key stake- holders, reputation, brand
and value creating activities (313).
The effort is worthwhile; according to Wiggins, a business will experience a major disruption
once every four years and many will fail within two years of a major disruption because they did
not have a business continuity plan (313). Despite this, Wiggins found that as of 2014, forty
percent of businesses did not have a business continuity plan (313). Wiggins further notes the
length of time typical emergencies will disrupt business operations, as seen in table 1.
Table 1 Average Length of Business Interruptions and Their Cause
Wiggins, Jane M. “Chapter 24: Business Continuity.” Facilities Manager’s Desk Reference,
Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2014. p. 314.
Fire 28 days
IT failure 10 days
Lightning 22 days
Flood 10 days
Theft 26 days
Power failure 1 day
16
In an industrial context, business continuity planning include threats to IT infrastructure,
production lines, supply chains, personnel through workplace violence or pandemics, among
other disruptions (Wiggins 313). In a museum context there is some overlap; museums are as
reliant on IT infrastructure as any industry, and a sudden loss of workers due to workplace
violence of pandemic illness would similarly make it difficult for a museum to carry on its
operations. However, there are elements of museum operations that are unique and these must
be considered as well. Revenue generating elements such as ticket sales, gift shops, cafes, and
memberships and revenue generating activities such as private functions, concerts, and other
ticketed public events can be brought to a halt by a myriad of things, of which the pandemic was
only one. A museum can also be subject to risks to its reputation and brand, as illustrated by
recent controversies over corporate sponsorship (Harris) and the controversial decision of the
National Gallery of Art, Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Houston Museum of Fine Arts, and Tate
Modern to postpone a Philip Guston retrospective (Smee). Museums such as the Newseum in
Washington, DC and the International Museum of World War II in Newton, Massachusetts have
fallen victim to overly ambitious development plans, in both instances leading to their closure
(Hansen, Maas). While these were not the result of poor business continuity planning, they are
illustrative of the importance of understanding the business aspect of managing a museum.
Business Continuity Planning History
According to Brahim Herbane, business continuity planning emerged in the 1970s as the
widespread use of mainframe computers led companies to consider the inherent vulnerability of
relying on a single system that while powerful, was complex and new even to its operators (982).
This initial focus on keeping the mainframes operating evolved through the 1980s and 1990s, but
17
remained technologically focused, given the advent of the personal computer, increasing
interconnectedness of systems and data, and the increased speed at which business took place
(Herbane 982). However, in the early 1990s, events such as the 1990 attack against the London
Stock Exchange, 1993 bombing of the Word Trade Center in New York, and the 1990 blackout in
Manhattan underscored the importance of business continuity planning expanding beyond IT
(Herbane 983). Industry began looking at the hazards other systems within the business faced,
such as facilities, personnel, and supply chain. Herbane notes:
Business continuity planning emerged as a response to the need to protect and restore the
critical value-generating activities of an organisation. Since these activities comprise of
(sic) combinations of facilities, human resources, equipment, intellectual property and
supply chain linkages, a trans-functional process (e.g. manufacturing) and facilities (e.g.
headquarters) driven approach lay at the heart of BCP (984).
Events in the 21st century such as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the 2008 financial
crisis, and the SARS, MERS, and H1N1 pandemics further expanded the range of hazards to be
considered when developing business continuity plans and introduced the concept of developing
and expanding resilience within organizations (Herbane, 984).
Elements of a business continuity plan
The main elements of business continuity planning are similar to those of museum disaster
planning. The first step is to assess the hazards that threaten business operations through
conducting a business impact analysis. This requires a detailed understanding of the business and
18
identification of those activities and process that, if disrupted, will affect the organization’s
ability to operate. Scenarios could include:
physical damage to a building buildings, damage to or breakdown of machinery, systems
or equipment; restricted access to a site or building; interruption of the supply chain
including failure of a supplier or disruption of transportation of goods from the supplier;
utility outage (e.g., electrical power outage); damage to, loss or corruption of information
technology including voice and data communications, servers, computers, operating
systems, applications, and data; absenteeism of essential employees (“Business Impact
Analysis”).
The analysis predicts the effects of the disruption: loss of sales or income; delays in sales
or income; increased expenses; and customer dissatisfaction or defections are some of the
possible results of a disruption (“Business Impact Analysis”). The timing of the disruption also
needs to be considered; a flood that causes a store to close in March will have a different effect
on business than a flood that causes a store to close in early December, during the prime holiday
shopping season (“Business Impact Analysis”). Similarly, a power outage that affects IT
infrastructure and lasts for an hour will have a different effect than one that lasts for a day
(“Business Impact Analysis”).
After the hazards and their effects are identified, the next step is to take steps to mitigate
the risks these hazards pose, for example, by ensuring data is backed up regularly and steps are
taken to prevent computer virus or ransomware attacks (Kopp 41). Not all risks can be mitigated,
either because of cost or because the hazard is such that mitigation is impossible and addressing
its potential impact must be covered in the BCP (Kopp 41). After addressing mitigation, the BCP
19
should articulate what skills and resources are needed to address the identified risks should they
come to pass, assess what the gaps are in resources and capabilities, and develop strategies and
procedures to close those gaps (“Business Continuity Plan”). These strategies and procedures are
documented in the business continuity plan, along with the assignment of roles and
responsibilities for relevant staff, and a communications plan. The plan should be tested through
table-top exercises or simulated crises and revised as needed (“Business Continuity Plan”).
Case Studies: Nissan and The Home Depot
Nissan during the March 2011 Fukushima Disaster
On March 11, 2011 an earthquake struck Japan, causing a tsunami which then caused a partial
meltdown at the Fukushima Dacha nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan (“Fukushima
Accident”). This triple-disaster had a severe impact on industry in Japan, affecting
manufacturing and supply chains. Auto manufacturer Nissan was well prepared to respond to the
disaster. The company had been planning for an earthquake since 2003, identifying evacuation
routes and centers and retrofitting its plants to withstand seismic activity (Aggarwarl and
Srivastava 3). The company also had annual drills and simulations to practice executing its
business continuity plan (Aggarwarl and Srivastava 3). Within 15 minutes, the company had set
up a “Global Disaster Control Office” at its headquarters in Yokohama, Japan, where it
confirmed the safety of its employees, suppliers, and customers, and then began executing its
recovery plan (Aggarwarl and Srivastava 3). Despite the fact that two of Nissan’s plants suffered
severe damage and each lost day of production cost the company $25 million in profits, by April,
2011 the plants were online and producing at pre-disaster levels by mid-May (Aggarwarl and
Srivastava 3).
20
The Home Depot’s Reputational Crisis
The Home Depot, because of its concentration of stores in Florida, had developed a robust and
nimble business continuity plan addressing hurricanes, but in late winter of 2007, the company
experienced a crisis for which it had not prepared (Leonard, et al. 7). On 7 March 2007, online
news site MSN.com published an article critical of The Home Depot’s customer service. The
article set off a firestorm when over 7000 people posted their complaints about and negative
experiences at The Home Depot on MSN.com's comment board. Though the mainstream media
had not picked up the story, The Home Depot executives followed the message board with
concern:
…an official response from the company would likely create a mainstream media news
story where one didn’t currently exist, yet ignoring the discussion would create a
perception among the online community that Home Depot was monolithic and out of
touch. And if the company did respond, who should do it and what would the tone be? If
the company injected itself into the debate, how would it address the legitimate customer
issues that had been raised? (Leonard, et al. 8).
New CEO Frank Blake posted a statement on the MSN.com message board, introducing
himself, acknowledging the complaints, and providing an email address where disgruntled
customers could communicate their complaints directly to the company (Leonard, et al. 8). The
speed and severity of the reputational crisis was a wake-up call to The Home Depot, which
realized that damage to its reputation was as significant a hazard as a hurricane and should be
incorporated into its business continuity planning (Leonard, et. al. 8).
21
Comparison of Museum Disaster and Business Continuity Plans
When comparing museum disaster and business continuity plans, some things stand out.
Museum disaster plans are concerned primarily with protecting life, the collection, and facilities,
whereas business continuity plans are focused on preserving an organization’s ability to conduct
its business. Museum disaster planning typically concentrates on physical and environmental
threats, whereas ephemeral threats to IT infrastructure and branding are addressed in business
continuity plans. In developing and implementing both plans, museum managers should work
closely with the physical plant staff, as breakdowns in the physical plant can place both
collections and business functions at risk. Each plan can be implemented alone or in concert with
the other, as the situation dictates.
Though current experience underscores the importance for museums to develop business
continuity plans as part of the disaster planning process, such planning touches upon a
fundamental tension between the curatorial and business aspects of the museum. The current
crisis will force museums to reconcile this tension, to their long-term benefit. Adding a BCP to
the disaster planning process will help museums not just deal with any future pandemics, but also
other traditional museum disasters that result in a sudden, prolonged stop in revenue or loss of
access to its facilities.
Resilience in Museums
The current crisis has illustrated museums’ need for resilience. The June 2020 AAM
survey illustrates examples of resilience in museums, both expected and unexpected.
22
Table 2
American Alliance of Museums. “A Snapshot of US Museums' Response to the
COVID-19 Pandemic (June 2020).” American Alliance of Museums, 17 Nov.
2020, www.aam-us.org/2020/07/22/a-snapshot-of-us-museums-response-to-the-
covid-19-pandemic/.
The first five bars show that museums have responded to the sudden loss of visitors as
one might expect - by pushing content online and developing ways to reach the audience where it
was. Seventy-four percent of respondents provided educational resources for children, parents,
and teachers; fifty-four percent provided educational resources for college students and adults;
sixty percent provided live or recorded video lectures; forty-three percent provided enhanced
access to digital collection resources; sixty-four percent provided access to digital entertainment
23
or activities. These were intuitive and important steps to keep the public engaged with these
institutions and likely helped to some extent to ease the fiscal shock museums experienced
through increased memberships and donations. Such engagement likely also maintained a core
audience of future visitors when conditions are safe to reopen.
But it is the last five bars that are especially interesting: five percent provided financial
assistance to the community or other non-profits; twenty-three percent donated personal
protective equipment or other material to health-care workers; fourteen percent opened their
grounds or buildings for Covid-19 relief uses; seven percent made their wifi available to the
community, and ten percent responded in some other way. These represent ways that museums
not only demonstrate resilience in continuing to execute their core mission in light of the
pandemic, but ways in which museums can contribute to society’s resilience, through sharing
their resources with the community in ways that do not necessarily relate to their mission, but
highlight their role as community assets in the widest sense.
Resilience has become a popular buzzword, but the concept is valid and should have a
prominent place in both business continuity and disaster planning. Originally conceived in the
field of psychology as “descriptive label [...] [for] individuals who appear to function
surprisingly well under environmental conditions judged to be adverse and stressful” (Darkow
145). Aaron Wildavsky expanded the concept beyond the psychological to the social sciences
(Darkow 145). In the context of business continuity planning, resilience is “the ability of an
organization to resist, absorb, recover, and adapt to the altered environment following a disaster”
(Tracey et al. 1), though it could be argued that resilience expands beyond that to encompass
24
“the capacity of an enterprise to survive, adapt and grow in the face of turbulent change” (Fiksel,
et al. 82).
Developing and exercising resilience is an important complement to business continuity
planning because not all risks can be anticipated and/or mitigated, therefore, “a meaningful
conceptualization of resilience cannot be blind to uncertainty, but rather needs to integrate
uncertainty into its understanding” (Darkow 147). Studies of “High reliability organizations” in
which the margins of deviance from normal operations are narrow and the stakes of
mismanaging these deviances are high, such as airlines or nuclear power plants (Williams, et al.
746), have shown that these organizations recognize not all deviances can be predicted and
understand that “resilience involves improvising and using generic resources…(e.g., knowledge,
communication, financial resources, emotional, relational, structural capacities) to avoid a
catastrophe or to mitigate its evolution” (Williams, et al. 746). Even when risks can be
anticipated, risk assessments in business continuity planning are only as good as the assumptions
underlying them and can represent a “simplified, ‘reductionist’ view of the world” in which
“each risk is identified and addressed independently, and hidden interactions are seldom
recognized. This procedural approach can lull organizations into a false sense of complacency
that could be shattered by an unexpected event” (Fiksel, et al. 81).
There are three elements of resilience that are important to understand. The first is that
resilience should not necessarily be defined as “bouncing back,” but rather, achieving a “new
normal” (Darkow 146). The second is that developing resilience takes place across time; by
looking at the past, present, and future (Howitt and Leonard). The third is that social capital is
central to the most effective forms of resilience (Darkow 146). These are concepts that the
25
museum world should easily absorb, as museums are organizations that are constantly evolving
to address the pressing issues of the day as well as changing audience tastes, often include the
interpretation of the past, for the present, and in anticipation of the future as part of their mission,
and strive to be integral members of their communities.
The current pandemic calls into sharp relief the significance of recognizing that resilience
goes beyond merely returning to the status quo. While a museum could pick up the pieces and
resume normal operations after a discrete disaster such as a flood or fire, societal crises such as
the pandemic “can fundamentally reshape our beliefs and behaviors” (Reeves, et al. 1) creating
“new attitudes, needs, and behaviors which need to be managed” (Reeves and Fuller). While
“traditional risk management is predicated on the goal of returning to a stable operating
condition…a more realistic view is to recognize that every disruption represents a learning
opportunity that may suggest shifting to a different state of operations” (Sloan 81). Anecdotally,
a handful of museum professionals have mentioned in private conversations that they had been
considering expanding their educational outreach and online presence prior to the pandemic and
current conditions accelerated the process. It is safe to assume that when the pandemic has
passed, many of the museums that survive will have a much more robust online presence and
digital education capability than they had prior to the pandemic, enabling them to reach
audiences and interpret their collections in ways that would not have existed but for their need to
rapidly respond to the crisis.
Indeed, the most resilient institutions will not only survive the current crisis, but could
come out improved; fourteen percent of businesses grew during recent economic downturns
(Reeves, et al. 5). While these businesses reduced costs to remain viable, they also innovated
26
around the opportunities the downturn presented and in so doing shaped the post-crisis future
(Reeves, et al. 5). Museums were already grappling with the challenges of modern society before
the pandemic, addressing issues of racial justice, indigenous rights, and employee equity. In
addition to the funding challenges the pandemic poses for museums, it has also highlighted the
effects of economic inequality and systemic racism in both the museum and society-at-large.
Such challenges present opportunities for creative and forward-leaning museums to shape the
post-Covid world and become leaders in their communities and beyond in addressing these
issues.
In order to be positioned to shape the post-crisis world, museums need to develop their
resilience across time, taking steps before, during, and after a crisis to successfully manage it
(Darkow 146). Herman “Dutch” Leonard and Arnold Howitt have noted that while:
…less attention is typically paid to prevention and mitigation efforts, which work on
reducing the likelihood that a disaster will occur or on reducing the consequences of an
event if it does take place. And almost entirely neglected are steps that could be taken in
advance that would make recovery quicker, less expensive, or more complete (1).
They argue there is a:
…need to extend the time frame of our examination of disasters in both directions. We
need to look farther into the future, after the end of the immediate response and into the
longer process of recovery. And we need to look farther into the past—into things that
can be done to avert events…to shape them so that their consequences are not so severe if
they do occur…or to permit more rapid recovery from disaster consequences that still
occur in spite of these efforts (2).
27
One way of doing this is by ensuring that a business continuity plan is a living document,
subject to exercises, testing, and revision as needed. Exercising the plan forces personnel to think
through actions needed in times of emergency, highlights weaknesses in the plan, and ensures
that personnel are familiar with the plan if and when it is activated (Duncan, et al. 141).
Beyond using the business continuity plan as a tool for developing resilience over time,
museum leaders also need imagination. Reeves and Fuller champion the virtues of imagination in
times of crisis:
with imagination we can do better than merely adapting to a new environment—we can
thrive by shaping it. To do this, we need to strategize across multiple time scales, each
requiring a different style of thinking. In the current Covid-19 crisis, for example…
renewal and adaptive strategies give way to classical planning-based strategies and then
to visionary and shaping strategies, which require imagination (149).
The final requirement for resilience is social capital. Leonard and Howitt note studies
indicating the pace of recovery after major disasters is determined by the quality of
neighborhood-based leadership and that “efforts to build local leadership groups and provide
them with experience in organizing their neighborhoods may significantly increase the rate of
recovery” (8). Additionally, community social networks and organizations can provide resources
for physical, material, and emotional support in a disaster (Williams, et al. 749). In arguing for a
new business model for museums that reflect changes in modern societal and consumer behavior,
John Falk and Beverly Sheppard describe a museum business model that recognizes the
importance of social capital in developing resilience, “…figuring prominently in this new model
is that it is situated within the ecosystem of the larger society” (22). Museums are central to the
28
fabric of their neighborhoods and the broader society and can play a role as both benefactor and
beneficiary in managing the current crisis as well as future crises.
The Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston is an example of a museum that has
expanded its role in helping the community through, among other things, offering its Watershed
facility in East Boston as a food distribution site, serving 400 households (Garza and Wagner
17). Similarly, Old Salem in Salem, North Carolina is using its display gardens to grow food for
local food pantries (“Old Salem”). Museums should consider the ways in which they can be
resilient both through creative approaches for fulfilling their core mission during museum
specific and widespread disasters, and ways in which they can contribute to the community’s
resilience during widespread disasters.
Resilience is not a replacement for business continuity planning, but rather an important
complement to it. Darkow writes:
Organizations need both sophisticated risk assessment and planning capabilities to avoid
potential threats or reduce the impact of those threats. They also need the ability to
respond and adapt to sudden shocks in order to contain hazardous effects. Prioritizing
one approach over the other neglects the potential interdependencies between the
different phases and the capabilities to manage them (150).
Case Study: Jorvik Viking Centre
Jorvik Viking Center, in York, England, opened as a museum and tourist attraction in
1984, following the 1976 discovery of the Viking site during construction of a shopping center
(“Coppergate Dig”). The museum is “…the first and only permanent venue in the UK wholly
dedicated to the investigation and representation of the Viking period in Britain and the wider
29
Viking world” (Tuckley “Digging” 76). The museum is composed of a “time travel” attraction in
which visitors travel through an imagined streetscape based upon the archaeological site, as well
as galleries exhibiting items recovered from the area (“2017”). It is one of the top attractions in
York, with over 19 million visitors between 1984 and 2019 and contributes significantly to the
city’s economy (Tuckley “Digging” 76). Jorvik Viking Centre falls under the York
Archaeological Trust which provides funding for archaeological fieldwork, but which expects
other elements under its umbrella to be self-funding (Tuckley). Given the museum’s success, the
York Archaeological Trusts strategy document takes into account the implications of losing the
Jorvik Viking Centre (Tuckley).
Over the course of Jorvik Viking Centre’s 36 years of operation, it has undergone several
major refurbishments and reimagining in response to changing scholarship and visitor tastes, the
2008 international financial crisis, a catastrophic flood, and now the pandemic. In 2000, the
museum closed for its first major refurbishment, reopening in April 2001; the refurbishment
incorporated both up-to-date archeological research and state-of-the-art exhibition design
(Tuckley “Digging" 84). During its closure, the museum held a temporary exhibit “The Jorvik
Story” at a nearby venue, elements of which were also exhibited in Iceland from 2000 to 2003
(Tuckley “Digging" 84). These exhibits enabled the museum to continue to serve its local
community, while also expanding its brand overseas.
Between 2009 - 2010 the museum undertook a second, partial refurbishment, both as a
means to increase revenue following the 2008 financial crisis and to further incorporate the latest
archaeological research (Tuckley “Digging” 90). The motivation to increase revenue was in part
driven by a city-wide effort to increase tourist spending following the financial crisis (Tuckley
30
“Digging” 90). This demonstrates how Jorvik Viking Centre is an integral part of York’s cultural
fabric, part of Falk and Sheppard’s “ecosystem of the larger society” (22). The social capital the
museum has with the city and the city has with the museum is one of the elements of resilience
that is no doubt being called upon during the pandemic.
In late 2015 Jorvik Viking Centre undertook its most challenging refurbishment,
responding to a catastrophic flood that closed the museum for sixteen months. The closure
enabled the museum to update its visitor center, change the timeline to reflect the most recent
research, and incorporate live actors into the time travel attraction (Tuckley “Digging” 94). It
also allowed the museum to focus on digitizing its photographic and video archive from the
excavations and use them in a history of the dig (Tuckley “Re-Imagining” 1). As with previous
closures, the museum sponsored special exhibits from its collection at several sites in York,
allowing residents and visitors an opportunity to engage with the museum while its main site was
not operational (“2017”).
In addition to making major changes to the exhibit and attraction, and digitizing its
archives, the museum incorporated a “series of flood mitigation measures designed and installed
to increase…future resilience against flooding” as well as improvements to the building,
included the installation of emergency lighting, fire and intruder alarm systems, and other
improvements to the physical plant (Tuckley “Re-imagining” 14). Such mitigation measures are
consistent with steps that can be taken as part of business continuity planning and will contribute
to the museum’s resilience against flooding in the face of global climate change. Insurance
covered most of the reconstruction, with donations covering approximately one-quarter of the
£4.5 million total cost. While European museums in general enjoy more government funding
31
than those in the United States, Jorvik Viking Centre, like its American counterparts, is self-
funding and subject to the same challenges during the pandemic (or other disaster/crisis).
Though challenged by the pandemic, these experiences have made Jorvik Viking Centre
resilient and positioned them well to manage the current crisis. The museum has a learning
culture, illustrated by their having “…looked back to earlier iterations of Jorvik to make sense of
the steps to be taken toward its future” (Tuckley 76). The museum has looked to its past to adapt
to the current reality, increasing its online presence and developing live virtual programming that
has attracted participants from Europe, the United States, Mexico, and India. The museum has
also participated in an international virtual summer camp. Just as during their first closure in
2001- 2001, when it sponsored a traveling exhibition to Iceland, the museum has expanded its
international brand through its pandemic response. The Jorvik Viking Centre has proven nimble
in creating online content and providing content off-site that allowed for social distancing until
the museum was able to reopen at a reduced capacity in the summer of 2020.
Discussion
Museums and museum accrediting bodies have long recognized the importance of
disaster planning as central to the ethics of holding a collection in the public trust (“Disaster
Preparedness”). The SARS-CoV2 pandemic has illustrated the need for ethical considerations to
expand beyond protection of the collection to protection of the museum’s ability to operate,
maintain fiscal viability, and develop resilience, as well as the ability to contribute to the
resilience of the community. Any one of the myriad challenges the pandemic has posed to
museums would be sufficient to implement a BCP: the loss of staff through illness or stay-at-
home orders; the loss of revenue as a result of mandated closures; the loss of facilities and the
32
impact that has on fulfilling an educational mission; interruptions of supply chain as a result of
increased demand on suppliers and shippers (possibly impacting cafes and gift shops, for
example); reputational crises as issues of employee equity are brought to the fore; the list goes
on.
While help in managing these challenges exists in the form of commercial property/
business interruption insurance and government aid, the pandemic has highlighted the limitations
of both the government’s and insurers’ responses, underscoring the fact that museums must take
a proactive role in protecting their ability to fulfill their mission during times of disruption. The
case study of Nissan’s response to the Fukushima disaster provides a compelling example of how
the development and implementation of a BCP can enable an organization to overcome the most
severe crises. It is also a compelling example of resilience, demonstrating Nissan’s ability to
adapt to a situation (an earthquake causes a tsunami that causes a nuclear meltdown) that could
not have been imagined in its business continuity planning.
The development of a BCP in concert with a disaster plan will contribute to a museum’s
resilience, however; to be effective, they must be living documents that are embraced by
leadership and staff alike, subject to regular exercises and review, and revised as needed (see
figure 1). Such engagement with these documents not only ensures staff are trained in them when
they are implemented, but contributes to the intangibles that are also necessary to develop
resilience. Intangibles such as the leadership Frank Blake demonstrated during The Home
Depot’s reputational crisis in 2007, and the imagination that Reeves and Fuller champion,
enabling an organization to not only adapt, but thrive in the face of change. Additionally, these
exercises need not be in-house only, as developing relationships with suppliers, community
33
organizations, and first responders will contribute to the social capital that is so important for
managing and recovering from crises.
Figure 1
Conclusion
Business continuity planning is a logical complement to museum disaster planning and
should be considered a best practice in the museum field. The development of a BCP will help to
ensure that a museum can operate and fulfill its mission despite disruptions, both those that fall
under and outside a traditional disaster plan. In addition, the development and exercising of a
BCP will contribute to the museum’s resilience, providing museum managers and staff
opportunities to demonstrate leadership and engagement both within the museum and the
community. The SARS-CoV2 pandemic has highlighted the need for business continuity
planning and resilience for museums as they adapt to the new reality and prepare for the post-
pandemic world.
34
Appendix A
Basic Business Continuity Planning Template for Museums
I. Conduct Business Impact Analysis identifying all possible hazards that could disrupt
museum operations, such as: loss of IT systems/data/records; loss of personnel due to
pandemic illness, labor disputes, etc.; loss of donors/revenue; terrorism or workplace
violence; power outage; etc. Some identified hazards may overlap with hazards included in
the museum disaster plan. Identify areas where the risks posed by identified hazards can be
mitigated and do so to the extent possible. (See figure 2 for a sample business impact
analysis worksheet.)
II. Maintain contact information for museum leadership (including board members), staff,
volunteers, key vendors, banks and creditors, and donors. Ensure all museum staff and
volunteers have the contact information for relevant museum leadership and management.
Develop an emergency communication plan to ensure museum staff and volunteers are able
to communicate up and down the management/employee chain. Other contact information
may be considered sensitive (donors, banks) and should be maintained only by those who
normally work with these contacts and their designee as appropriate.
III. Identify primary worksites and alternative worksites should access to the primary sites be
lost (e.g., main museum building, storages warehouse, off-site office space, etc.). Consider
what equipment or capabilities will be required at these sites and how it could be acquired
when needed or ahead of time.
35
IV. Identify where and how important records and data are stored and what steps can be taken to
preserve this information in the case of IT systems failure, malware, power outage, etc. This
could include backing up data and maintaining it in servers off site or on removable storage
media.
V. Consider how to engage with the museum members, community members, scholars, etc. and
fulfill the museum’s mission during periods of disruption. Cultivate relationships with
community leaders, educators, first responders, etc. Consider how the museum can
contribute to community resilience and how the community can contribute to the museum’s
resilience.
VI. Consider how to engage with donors, creditors, commercial sponsors, bankers, and other
financial contacts during periods of disruption. Consider priorities for funding during times
of disruption. Consider alternative sources of funding or appeals that can be made during
times of disruption. Assess the museum’s state of fiscal health and identify areas of
vulnerability should there be a major disruption. Consider steps to mitigate financial
vulnerabilities.
VII. Consider how to engage with the media. What contacts have already been developed?
Designate a media coordinator to manage media coverage of the disruption.
36
37
Business Impact Analysis Worksheet
ready.gov/business
Ready Business®
Department / Function / Process
Operational & Financial Impacts
Timing / Duration Operation Impacts Financial Impact
Timing: Identify point in time when interruption would have greater impact (e.g., season, end of month/quarter, etc.)
Duration: Identify the duration of the interruption or point in time when the operational and or financial impact(s) will occur. • < 1 hour • >1 hr. < 8 hours • > 8 hrs. <24 hours • > 24 hrs. < 72 hrs. • > 72 hrs. • > 1 week • > 1 month
Considerations (customize for your business) Operational Impacts Financial Impact • Lost sales and income Quantify operational impacts in financial terms. • Negative cash flow resulting from delayed sales
or income • Increased expenses (e.g., overtime labor,
outsourcing, expediting costs, etc.) • Regulatory fines • Contractual penalties or loss of contractual
bonuses • Customer dissatisfaction or defection • Delay executing business plan or strategic initiative
Figure 2 “Business Impact Analysis Worksheet.” Business Impact Anaysis Worksheet, Ready.gov, 2020,
www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/business-impact-analysis-worksheet.pdf.
Appendix B
Areas for Future Research
This capstone project was undertaken in response to the events of the 2020 pandemic as it
was happening. In the course of researching it, questions were raised that went beyond the scope
of the paper but are worth further examination. Following are research questions for possible
future exploration to better understand how to incorporate business continuity planning into
museum management best practices and better understand the impact the 2020 pandemic had on
museums—their operations, their resilience, and their roles in contributing to community
resilience.
1. What is the current state of business continuity planning in museums? Amanda
Benson’s article addressed a localized subset of museums in California. How many museums
nationwide (or internationally) currently have business continuity plans? How were they
implemented during the pandemic and what were the results? What best practices have these
museums developed in designing, training, and implementing their business continuity plans?
2. How did the SARS-CoV2 pandemic affect museums? How many museums closed or
were otherwise suffered significant negative impacts as a result of the pandemic? What were
those impacts? What factors led to these museums closing or otherwise reducing their service to
the community?
3. Conversely, for museums that effectively weathered the pandemic, what steps did they
take to do so? How did they manage the challenges of remote work, mission fulfillment,
community engagement, community resilience, revenue generation, among other challenges?
38
What have they learned from this experience and how will they change their operations going
forward?
39
Works Cited
“2017.” JORVIK Viking Centre, 2017, www.jorvikvikingcentre.co.uk/about/jorvik-story/return-
of-the-vikings/. Accessed 13 December 2020.
“3.3 Emergency Planning.” Northeast Document Conservation Center, 2017, www.nedcc.org/
free-resources/preservation-leaflets/3.-emergency-management/3.3-emergency-planning.
Accessed 13 December 2020.
“A Public Trust at Risk” The Heritage Health Index Report on the State of America’s Collections,
https://www.culturalheritage.org/docs/default-source/hhi/hhisummary.pdf. December
2005. Accessed 14 September 2020.
“About the Heritage Health Index.” HHI, Heritage Preservation, December 2005,
resources.culturalheritage.org/hhi/home/about-the-heritage-health-index/. Accessed 14
September 2020.
“Advocate for Museums.” Association of Children's Museums, 19 June 2020,
www.childrensmuseums.org/about/covid-19/covid-19-advocacy.
Aggarwal, Shikha, and Manoj Kumar Srivastava. “Nissan: Recovering Supply Chain Opera
tions.” Management Development Institute Gurgaon and Richard Ivey School of Busi
ness Foundation. 2016.
40
American Alliance of Museums. “A Snapshot of US Museums' Response to the COVID-19
Pandemic (June 2020).” American Alliance of Museums, 17 Nov. 2020, www.aam-
us.org/2020/07/22/a-snapshot-of-us-museums-response-to-the-covid-19-pandemic/.
Accessed 15 December 2020.
American Alliance of Museums. “Museums Included in Economic Relief Legislation.” American
Alliance of Museums, 27 Apr. 2020, www.aam-us.org/2020/03/27/museums-included-in-
economic-relief-legislation/, Accessed 3 October 2020.
American Alliance of Museums. “National Standards and Best Practices.” The AAM Press,
Washington, DC. 2008
American Library Association, Library Recovery Funding Summary, March 2020.
Benson, Amanda. “Recovering From Natural Disasters: Helping Museum Employees Return To
Workplace Normalcy.” Disaster Management and Human Health Risk V, 2017,
doi:10.2495/dman170171.
Brady, Anna. “Insurers Hit by Art-World Class Action Lawsuit as Coronavirus Crisis Bites.” The
Art Newspaper, The Art Newspaper, 5 June 2020, www.theartnewspaper.com/news/
insurers-hit-by-art-world-class-action. Accessed 1 November 2020
“Business Continuity Plan.” Business Continuity Plan/Ready.gov, 2020, www.ready.gov/
business-continuity-plan. Accessed 14 September 2020.
41
“Business Impact Analysis.” Business Impact Analysis | Ready.gov, 28 July 2020,
www.ready.gov/business-impact-analysis. Accessed 18 October 2020.
Capps, Kriston. “How D.C. Museums Fared in the Paycheck Protection Program Lottery.”
Washington City Paper, 14 May 2020, washingtoncitypaper.com/article/174462/how-dc-
museums-fared-in-the-paycheck-protection-program-lottery/. Accessed 7 December
2020.
“CARES Act Arts and Cultural Provisions.” Insight, Congressional Research Service, 27 May
2020, crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11409. Accessed 7 December 2020.
“Developing a Disaster Plan,” https://www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/developing-
a-disaster-plan-final.pdf. 2018. Accessed 3 October 2020.
“Coppergate Dig.” JORVIK Viking Centre, 2020, www.jorvikvikingcentre.co.uk/about/jorvik-
story/coppergate-dig/. Accessed 20 October 2020.
Cunniffe, Eileen. “For Puerto Rico's Art Museums, Hurricane Maria Wreaked Havoc and
Revealed Vulnerabilities.” Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly, 14 Mar. 2018,
nonprofitquarterly.org/puerto-rico-art-museums-hurricane-havoc/. Accessed 15
December 2020.
Dadson, Emma. Emergency Planning and Response for Libraries, Archives, and Museums.
Facet, 2012, pp. 193–206.
42
“Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Response Plan.” American Alliance of Museums.
https://www.aam-us.org/programs/ethics-standards-and-professional-practices/disaster-
preparedness-and-emergency-response-plan/ Accessed 8 May 2020.
Donnelly, Jennifer A. “The CEO Art Museum Director: Business as Usual?” Transatlantica, no.
2, 2010, doi:10.4000/transatlantica.5044.
Elejalde-Ruiz, Alexia. “Business Owners Bleeding Money during the Coronavirus Shutdown
May Expect Insurance to Cover Their Losses. But Often They're in for a Shock.”
Chicagotribune.com, 16 Apr. 2020, www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-
coronavirus-business-interruption-insurance-lawsuits-20200416-
b5kl3xaweja7refbqfr4cpkp3u-story.html. Accessed 1 November 2020.
Elejalde-Ruiz, Alexia. “In a Sweeping Lawsuit, 42 Chicago Businesses Seek Insurance Coverage
for COVID-Related Business Losses.” Chicagotribune.com, Chicago Tribune, 3 Aug.
2020, www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-coronavirus-chicago-lawsuit-business-
interruption-insurance-gibsons-20200803-gu6anbsmqzfxxh6h6hgivwxbfq-story.html.
Accessed 1 November 2020.
“Emergency Preparedness and Response.” ICOM, icom.museum/en/our-actions/heritage-
protection/emergency-preparedness-and-response/. Accessed 12 October 2020.
Falk, John H., and Beverly Sheppard. Thriving in the Knowledge Age: New Business Models for
Museums and Other Cultural Institutions. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006.
43
Fiksel, Joseph, Mikaella Poliviou, Keely L. Croxton, and Timothy J. Petit. “From Risk to Re
silience: Learning to Deal with Disruption.” MIT Sloan Management Review. Vol. 56 No.
2, pp. 79-86. Winter 2015.
“Finding Financial Relief and Support (for Individuals and Institutions).” American Alliance of
Museums, 29 Sept. 2020, www.aam-us.org/programs/about-museums/financial-relief-
and-resources/.
“Fukushima Accident.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 27 May 2020,
www.britannica.com/event/Fukushima-accident. Accessed 18 October 2020.
Garza, Monica, and Charlotte Wagner. “Supporting Community Well-Being Creatively.” ICA
Magazine, Winter 2020, pp. 16–17.
Gay, Malcolm. “In a Landslide Vote, MFA Workers Opt to Unionize - The Boston Globe.”
BostonGlobe.com, The Boston Globe, 20 Nov. 2020, www.bostonglobe.com/2020/11/20/
arts/landslide-vote-mfa-workers-opt-unionize/. Accessed 24 November 2020.
Hansen, Drew. “The Newseum Is Closing. Here's What's next for the Building and the Freedom
Forum.” Bizjournals.com, 2020, www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2019/12/31/the-
newseum-is-closing-heres-whats-next-for-the.html. Accessed 15 December 2020.
Harris, Elizabeth A. “The Louvre Took Down the Sackler Name. Here's Why Other Museums
Probably Won't.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 July 2019,
www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/arts/sackler-family-museums.html. Accessed 15
December 2020.
44
Henry, Walter. “A Brief Bibliography On Disasters.” Stanford University Libraries. https://
cool.culturalheritage.org/byauth/henry/southnet.html. May 1988. Accessed 13 September 2020.
Herbane, Brahim. “The Evolution of Business Continuity Management: A Historical Review of
Practices and Drivers.” Business History, vol. 52, no. 6, 2010, pp. 978–1002.
“Heritage Health Information Survey (HHIS).” Institute of Museum and Library Services, 25
Feb. 2019, www.imls.gov/data/surveys-data/heritage-health-information-survey-hhis.
Accessed 18 September 2020.
Holmes, Megan. “The Florence Flood: An Art Historical Perspective.” Flood in Florence, 1966:
A Fifty-Year Retrospective, Paul Conway, Martha O’Hara Conway. Maize Publishing,
2018
Jackson, Christine. “The BMA Deaccessioning Scandal, Explained.” Baltimore Magazine, 28
Oct. 2020, www.baltimoremagazine.com/section/uncategorized/the-bma-deaccessioning-
scandal-explained/. Accessed 24 November 2020.
Jacobs, Julia. “Arts Groups Fight Their Insurers Over Coverage on Virus Losses.” The New York
Times, The New York Times, 5 May 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/arts/insurance-
claims-coronavirus-arts.html. Accessed 1 November 2020.
Jones, Jenny. “New Museum Replaces One Leveled by Hurricane Katrina.” American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE), 1 July 2014, www.asce.org/magazine/20140701-new-museum-
replaces-one-leveled-by-hurricane-katrina/. Accessed 15 December 2020.
45
Kinsella, Eileen. “'Success Seems Based on Sheer Luck': Galleries and Museums Scramble for
Government Relief Funds-Before They Dry Up Again.” Artnet News, ArtNet News, 1
May 2020, news.artnet.com/art-world/art-paycheck-protection-program-1848351.
Lalley, Heather. “Well-Known Chefs Band Together to Demand Government Action on Business
Interruption Coverage.” Restaurant Business, Restaurant Business, 1 Apr. 2020,
www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/operations/well-known-chefs-band-together-demand-
government-action-business-interruption. Accessed 11 December 2020.
Leonard, Herman B., Marc J. Epstein, and Melissa Tritter. "The Home Depot: Leadership in Cri
sis Management." Harvard Business School Case 309-055, March 2009.
Maas, Steve. “In Natick, World War II Museum Abruptly Shuts down - The Boston Globe.”
BostonGlobe.com, The Boston Globe, 3 Sept. 2019, www.bostonglobe.com/metro/
2019/09/02/natick-world-war-museum-abruptly-shuts-down/
kidNpWeGOjVKa07sJp0MYJ/story.html. Accessed 15 December 2020.
McCambridge, Ruth. “New Round of Museum Layoffs Coincides with Expiration of PPP
Money.” Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly, 10 July 2020, nonprofitquarterly.org/
new-round-of-museum-layoffs-coincides-with-expiration-of-ppp-money/. Accessed 1
November 2020.
“Mississippi Museums Blasted By Hurricane Katrina.” Antiques And The Arts Weekly, 2005,
www.antiquesandthearts.com/mississippi-museums-blasted-by-hurricane-katrina/.
Accessed 15 December 2020.
46
“MOMA on Fire.” https://www.moma.org/interactivesmoma_through_time/1950/moma-on-fire/,
Accessed 14 September 2020
“National Survey of COVID-19 Impact on United States Museums.” American Alliance of
Museums , 2020, www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020_National-Survey-
of-COVID19-Impact-on-US-Museums.pdf.
“O'Keefe Museum History - Ohr-O'Keefe Museum of Art.” Ohr, 22 July 2020, georgeohr.org/
museum-history/. Accessed 15 December 2020.
“Old Salem Plants Victory Gardens for Local Food Banks.” Greater Winston-Salem, Inc., 21 Apr.
2020, www.winstonsalem.com/2020/04/old-salem-plants-victory-gardens-for-local-food-
banks/. Accessed 15 December 2020.
Overbeck Laise, Kristen. “Topics in Preservation Series (TOPS).” A Public Trust at Risk:
Findings of the Heritage Health Index - Topics in Preservation Series - Training
(Preservation, Library of Congress), 14 Apr. 2011, www.loc.gov/preservation/outreach/
tops/laise/index.html. Accessed 24 September 2020.
“Paycheck Protection Program.” Small Business Association, 2020, www.sba.gov/funding-
programs/loans/paycheck-protection-program. Accessed 29 September 2020.
“Public Trust and Accountability Standards.” American Alliance of Museums, 15 June 2020,
www.aam-us.org/programs/ethics-standards-and-professional-practices/public-trust-and-
accountability-standards/. Accessed 14 September 2020.
47
Pyle, Richard. “Katrina Ruined Some Cultural Sites.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 8 Sept. 2005,
www.cbsnews.com/news/katrina-ruined-some-cultural-sites/.
Reeves, Martin, and Jack Fuller. “We Need Imagination Now More Than Ever.” Harvard
Business Review, 14 Aug. 2020, hbr.org/2020/04/we-need-imagination-now-more-than-
ever. Accessed 11 December 2020.
Reeves, Martin, Philipp Carlsson-Szlezak, Kevin Whitaker, and Mark Abraham. “Sensing and
Shaping the Post-COVID Era.” BCG Global, BCG Global, 22 Sept. 2020,
www.bcg.com/publications/2020/8-ways-companies-can-shape-reality-post-covid-19.
Accessed 18 October 2020.
Smee, Sebastian. “Perspective | The Philip Guston Controversy Is Turning Artists against the
National Gallery.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 16 Oct. 2020,
www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/philip-guston-exhibition-
postponement/2020/10/16/930d74a4-0ef5-11eb-8a35-237ef1eb2ef7_story.html.
Accessed 20 October 2020.
Spruill, Vicki. “Thank you for helping us make progress.” New England Aquarium,
15 September 2020.
Tracey, Shannon, et al. “Promoting Resilience Using an Asset-Based Approach to Business
Continuity Planning.” SAGE Open, vol. 7, no. 2, 2017, p. 215824401770671.,
doi:10.1177/2158244017706712.
Tuckley, Christopher. “Re-Imagining Jorvik: End of Project Report.” April 2017.
48
Tuckley, Christopher. “The Vikings of Jorvik” Digging into the Dark Ages: Early Medieval
Public Archaologies. Williams, Howard and Pauline ClarkArchaopress 2020.
The CARES Act Works for All Americans U.S. Department of the Treasury, 14 Oct. 2020,
home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares. Accessed 15 December.
Wiggins, Jane M. “Chapter 24: Business Continuity.” Facilities Manager’s Desk Reference,
Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2014.
49
50
51
1
1