Continuity of Operations Planning for Small Airports (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

37 CHAPTER FIVE BENEFITS AND BARRIERS BENEFITS OF CONTINUITY PLANNING The survey data, case examples, and literature review show that airports of all sizes realize a benefit from continuity planning, primarily in increased preparedness and improved response and recovery from airport disruptions. In the survey, 96% of the airports cited increased preparedness as a benefit and 93% cited improved response and recovery (Table B32, Appendix B). Every case example cited increased preparedness as a benefit or perceived benefit to business and operations continuity plan- ning. However, these examples show that airports address planning for operational and business continuity recovery in different ways. Many airports have developed formal BCPs/COOPs, while others have efficiently incorporated continuity practices into existing functional plans or their AEPs. Still others rely on standard operating procedures, checklists, and other tools. ACRP Synthesis 60: Airport Emergency Post-Event Recovery Practices (Smith et al. 2015) looked at airport advance plan- ning and preparation recovery practices: Where the recovery plan is inserted into airport plans is a matter of local choice and does not appear to affect the usefulness of the plan or the quality of its outcomes. (p. 38) Depending on local circumstances and choices, airports can plan for recovery actions using AEPs, BCPs, COOPs, or any combination of functional or hazard-specific documents. Airports can realize a continuity planning benefit regardless of the instruments they use, as long as recovery and reconstitution practices are identified and applied. The case examples in this report reflect this fact. With regard to airport disruptions, the majority of survey respondents and case example interviewees cited emergency or hazard-specific incidents. Lakeland Linder Regional Airport has found that applying emergency response and recovery principles laid out in the NIMS doctrine can be an effective way of dealing with all types of airport disruptions (chapter four, Case Example 8). Because LAL trains for emergency response and recovery, it is proficient and effective at emergency response. That training translates to a benefit for addressing nonemergency disruptions, in which the airport uses its familiar and practiced response style coupled with specific SOPs. Regarding the use of business and operations continuity planning to reduce downtime, 80% of the airports surveyed responded that such planning decreased downtime in an airport disruption (Table B32, Appendix B). The majority of airports equate continuity planning with decreased downtime, resulting in a reduced operational and financial impact as well as a better public experience. This benefit is also supported by ACRP Synthesis 60, which suggests that one metric for the effec- tiveness of recovery is duration; that is, a speedy recovery is a successful recovery (Smith et al. 2015). (Although this is an oversimplified assessment of recovery success as defined in ACRP Synthesis 60.) ACRP Synthesis 60 further finds that airport recovery actions reinforce public perceptions of the airport (Smith et al. 2015): A poor recovery—whether assessed internally by the airport and its tenants or externally by the public, media, and politicians—can damage an airport’s professional reputation. Conversely, a successful recovery can substantially enhance both employee morale and commitment and public perception of the overall quality of the airport. (p. 5) Fifty-two percent of the survey respondents cited improved public perception of facility management as a benefit of conti- nuity planning (Table B32, Appendix B).

38 The involvement of stakeholders in business and operational continuity planning efforts, including review, improves the quality of the plan and its usability (Smith et al. 2015). ACRP Report 93: Operational and Business Continuity Planning for Prolonged Airport Disruptions (Corzine 2015) also suggests that it is beneficial to include stakeholders in the process: [Business continuity planning] at airports should comprehensively identify critical stakeholders, appropriately communicate with them about the process, and include them when relevant. Airports should consider whether stakeholder groups should be part of the process or simply be included in the communications plan to keep them appraised of BCP at the airport. (p. 12) All nine of the case example airports reported some level of benefit to stakeholder communication and involvement in their business continuity planning practices; in fact, some are working toward phasing continuity planning actions and compli- ance into tenant lease agreements. More than half of the airports reported that improved coordination with stakeholders and emergency response organizations was a benefit of continuity planning. Another primary benefit—reflected throughout the survey data and case examples—is further supported in one of the major conclusions of ACRP Synthesis 60: Relationships—among airport departments, between airports and their mutual aid partners, and between airports and other stakeholders—are essential to effective recovery, and relationships can be built in advance with a purpose, which is effective response and recovery. (p. 50) A number of the case examples in this report pointed to the need for a high level of coordination with both external and internal stakeholders. Airports appeared to benefit by closely coordinating with other city departments when those depart- ments supported critical airport business functions. Airports such as Dallas/Fort Worth International and Savannah/Hilton Head International cited the benefits of close coordination and training through their involvement with mutual aid organiza- tions, including the Southeast Airports Disaster Operations Group and the Western Airports Disaster Operations Group. Only a few respondent airports (4%) saw no real or perceived benefit to having a written BCP/COOP. The majority (more than 50%) consider one or more of the following as benefits of having a BCP/COOP: • Increased preparedness • Improved recovery and response • Reduced liability • Decreased downtime • Better relationship with tenants • Improved coordination with emergency response organizations • Improved public perception • Improved facility management. For DFW, continuity planning has brought transparency, collaboration, and consistency, resulting in a quicker return to normalcy of the airport’s core functions and businesses (chapter four, Case Example 1). The Minden-Tahoe Airport recognizes that continuity of operations planning allows it to act quickly and effectively during a disruption, with guidance for whom to call, who is in charge, how to handle the disruption, and how to determine the level of threat (chapter four, Case Example 3). The Metropolitan Airports Commission airport system includes Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport and its reliever airports. The MAC recognizes that any interruption to the operational or business functions of the airport will have a major impact on flight operations, passengers, and commerce, and the airport cannot sustain the huge economic impact of disrup- tions (K. Rollwagen, personal communication, Oct. 13, 2015). The MAC considers both its BCP and its COOP so beneficial in terms of preparedness that it plans to bring the entire reliever system, as well as numerous stakeholders, under the umbrella of the plans by incorporating them into lease agreements (chapter four, Case Example 2). Douglas Hammon, director of the Ohio State University Airport, says there are opportunities in continuity planning to think about “what the airport does, what is important for the airport, what is not important for the airport, and is there a better way to handle any functions under normal or disruptive conditions” (D. Hammon, personal communication, Oct. 15, 2015) (chapter four, Case Example 4).

39 Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport believes that a continuity plan is an effective tool for preparedness. The airport has procedures in place to increase preparedness and reduce downtime in the event of a normal operating function disruption. The “what do we do?” question has already been addressed. FXE believes that a formal COOP increases preparedness, improves recovery and response, decreases downtime, and improves coordination with emergency response organizations (chapter four, Case Example 5). The senior programs manager of SAV emphasized that the time to plan is before an event, be it irregular operations, a hurricane, or a pandemic. Including business continuity practices in airport functional plans has improved preparedness. For example, working through the continuity planning process helped the airport identify a deficiency in its technology resource. This led to the development of a business plan specific to IT infrastructure, which enabled the IT manager to plan years in advance and keep the airport well ahead of the curve in terms of IT infrastructure planning (chapter four, Case Example 6). Duluth International Airport believes that business and operations continuity planning can increase preparedness, improve recovery and response, reduce liability, improve insurance rating, decrease downtime, improve relationships with tenants, improve coordination with emergency response organizations, and improve public perceptions of facility management. Con- tingency planning helps DLH staff function efficiently in demanding situations. It provides guidance regarding the types and quantities of resources that might be needed (chapter four, Case Example 7). For Watsonville Municipal Airport, manager Rayvon Williams says continuity of operations planning is key to enabling the airport to quickly return from a minor or major disruption to its threefold mandate: “Safety, Service and Self-Sustainabil- ity.” Planning allows the airport to increase preparedness, improve recovery and response, decease downtime, and reduce liability exposure (chapter four, Case Example 9). BARRIERS TO CONTINUITY PLANNING The survey responses, case examples, and literature review identify a number of barriers to the development and implementa- tion of BCPs/COOPs or continuity practices at airports. These challenges involve many variables, including high costs, lack of resources, no perceived benefits, and lack of expertise with or understanding of business and operations continuity planning. Airport ownership structures vary considerably, and many functions at small airports may be handled by offsite depart- ments or federal or state agencies. In addition, contractual agreements with private companies often provide services such as airport management, fixed-base operator services, airfield maintenance, and air traffic control. Although small airports are typically less sophisticated in their makeup than larger airports, structural complexities can sometimes hinder continuity because of the decentralized nature of the operation. Governance Barrier Defined Many small airports are municipally or county owned, and rely on external departmental resources for functions such as payroll, purchasing, and technology support. ACRP Report 93: Operational and Business Continuity Panning for Prolonged Airport Disruptions (Corzine 2013) addresses airport ownership as it affects business continuity planning: The implications for BCP include extending the management commitment process, assessment, planning process, and training and exercises beyond the boundaries of the airport to each of those core functions that are managed by the airport operator or a governmental department or agency, wherever it may be physically located. This adds a level of complexity and demands inclusion and coordination. (p. 8) The airport’s continuity planning process must take the city or county COOP (if it exists) into consideration, and the airport plan must take into account the exposure to disruption of core business functions handled offsite (Corzine 2013). Externally controlled priorities can have an impact on operations at the airport but may not be consistent with the airport’s recovery needs. How to Overcome The key to addressing these issues is to build relationships, increase communication, and train with external departments. All the case examples in this report stressed the value of building relationships as a way to overcome this barrier. At Fort

40 Lauderdale Executive Airport, Minden-Tahoe Airport, and Ohio State University Airport, the airport BCP is part of the wider city or county plan. Core Functions Not Under Airport Control Barrier Defined Airports of all sizes have many functions and services that are handled through contractual agreements with private com- panies, such as airport management and FBO services. Government agencies that are outside the control of the airport are often located on airport grounds for aeronautical purposes, such as air traffic control. This setup presents a challenge for the development of continuity practices. ACRP Report 93 discusses this issue: Because contractors, commercial tenants, federal agencies, and FBOs often perform essential functions instead of airport employees, authority and control are dissipated and divided among those contractually connected organizations…. This level of complexity makes the BCP process at airports understandably challenging because so many core functions are out of the airports’ control. (p. 7) How to Overcome When many of an airport’s core functions are controlled by other entities, it is challenging to develop a comprehensive continuity strategy. Coordination is required among multiple entities to ensure cohesive and complementary continuity and recovery practices. Airports in this study overcome this barrier in a number of ways. Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (chapter four, Case Example 1) involves tenants in the review and training pro- cesses of the airport’s BCP. Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport (chapter four, Case Example 2) is phasing in a require- ment to reference the airport BCP/COOP in tenant leases and ultimately plans to require tenants to have their own coordinated COOPs. The Minden-Tahoe Airport (chapter four, Case Example 3) requires its FBOs and 20 commercial tenants to comply with the countywide COOP. Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport (chapter four, Case Example 5) employs a letter of agreement with the air traffic control tower to address operational continuity issues. Lack of Resources Barrier Defined Small airports face many challenges in developing a BCP, including limited staff, limited resources, high costs, and lack of expertise in standard business continuity practices. Of the airports surveyed, 16% of respondents cited lack of resources as the reason they do not have a BCP/COOP (Table B28, Appendix B). Nine percent cited a lack of guidance on continuity planning. Managers of small airports typically perform both administrative and operational tasks. Employees may play multiple roles or specialize in certain functions. This structure can lead to the development of institutional knowledge and established (although unwritten) practices that can be effective when problems occur. However, it can create significant continuity issues if those employees move on, retire, or pass away. How to Overcome The first place a small airport can turn for assistance with continuity planning is its own governance structure. The city or county that owns the airport might already have developed a continuity plan or be considering one. At Minden-Tahoe Air- port, the business and operations continuity planning effort was part of a strategic initiative at the county level. MEV worked with the county to develop the airport-specific part of the countywide BCP (chapter four, Case Example 3). At Ohio State University Airport, the university mandated that all its departments formalize BCPs/COOPs (chapter four, Case Example 4). The airport director has been able to leverage university resources to address both planning and implementation. He says that the cost of maintaining the airport BCP/COOP is minimal, as it part of the university’s risk management office (D. Hammon, personal communication, Oct. 15, 2015). Likewise, the Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport developed its BCP as part of an overall planning effort by the city of Fort Lauderdale (chapter four, Case Example 5). Developing plans with direction and support from the governing entity leverages available resources and also enhances communication and coordination. Costs for plan development and BCP/COOP maintenance can be barriers, especially for small airports with limited bud- gets. Airports that maintain a BCP/COOP as part of a city, county, or other governing entity BCP/COOP can leverage those

41 resources to reduce costs. Officials at Duluth International Airport report few direct costs other than those related to addi- tional resources to respond to and recover from specific disruptive events (chapter four, Case Example 7). Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, a large hub airport, allocates significant funding to maintain its BCP/COOP, budgeting more than $60,000 for annual plan maintenance. However, DFW and several other airports interviewed for this report advised small airports to keep their plans simple. Small airports can achieve some level of business continuity planning with very little effort or expense. MEV advises small airports to have a written plan, even if it is only one page long (chapter four, Case Example 3). OSU advises keeping it simple by seeking out existing BCPs to use as a template rather than reinventing the wheel (chapter four, Case Example 4). ACRP Report 93 (Corzine 2013) includes a software tool designed to help airports develop a BCP. Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport is using this tool to revise the Metropolitan Airports Commission systemwide BCP (chapter four, Case Example 2). (This tool and others are described further in chapter six.) As far as BCP/COOP maintenance is concerned, the majority of airports surveyed estimated that their annual maintenance costs were less than $10,000 (Table B37, Appendix B). Several airports with BCPs/COOPs reported these costs as minimal or said they were confined to staff time, which was incorporated into airport training budgets. Prioritization of Continuity Planning Barrier Defined The survey responses indicated that many airports have not even considered developing a formal, written BCP/COOP. Twenty- six percent of airports surveyed responded that they had “never considered” adopting a formal BCP (Table B28, Appendix B). Although there are recognized business continuity standards, airport practitioners have not yet widely embraced written BCPs. ACRP Report 93 (Corzine 2013) says, The research confirmed that although some airports have implemented various levels of BCP, a majority of them have not made BCP a critical priority. (p. 6) One reason for the lack of interest in BCPs is confusion about the terms “emergency management” and “business continu- ity” (Corzine 2013). Many airports associate continuity with emergency preparedness and focus on emergency response to the exclusion of potential business disruptions, such as payroll issues or downed computer systems. How to Overcome Six percent of the airports surveyed responded that written BCPs seem redundant, and 22% believed that business continuity was handled in other plans (Table B28, Appendix B). While some airports may confuse business continuity with emergency management and, therefore, assume that it is covered in the AEP or IROPS plans, others have intentionally placed continuity practices in functional plans as a preferred practice for dealing with continuity issues. Summary of Common Themes The airports in this report that have BCPs/COOPs or have developed formal business continuity practices all say they have benefited from the process. A number of the officials interviewed agree that business continuity practices are valuable and suggest that small airports can develop their own BCPs with minimal expense. The barriers to BCP development noted in this study can be overcome, as demonstrated by airports that have improved their own capacity for business and operational continuity. Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport, primary non-hub airports Lakeland Linder Regional and Duluth International, and reliever airport Ohio State University all recommend that small airports contemplating the development of a formal BCP/COOP look at what other airports are doing with continuity planning.