Mairead Loughman Dissertation FINAL 240716

DUBLIN CITY UNIVERITY
Business School
TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESS
CONTINUITY MANAGEMENT IN THE IRISH
UNIVERSITY SECTOR
Mairéad Loughman
Masters in Emergency Management
Supervisor: Mary Loonam
July 2016
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment for the degree
Masters in Emergency Management

ii
DISCLAIMER
I hereby certify that this material, which I submit for assessment on the programme of
study leading to the award of Masters in Emergency Management is entirely my
own work and has not been taken from the work of others save and to the extent that
such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text of my work.
Name: Mairéad Loughman
Signature:
Student number: 14211920
Date: 24th
July 2016

iii
RESEARCH ETHICS DECLARATION
Declaration by Researcher
The information contained here is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, accurate.
I have read the University’s current research ethics guidelines, and accept responsibility
for the conduct of the procedures set out in the attached application in accordance with
these guidelines, the University’s policy on conflict of interest and any other condition
laid down by the Dublin City University Research Ethics Committee or its Sub-
Committees. I have attempted to identify all the risks related to this research, that may
arise in conducting this research, and acknowledge my obligations and the rights of the
participants.
I have declared any affiliation or financial interest in this research or its outcomes or any
other circumstances which might present a perceived, potential or actual conflict of
interest, in accordance with Dublin City University policy on Conflicts of Interest.
Signature: ________________________________________________________
Print Name: ________________________________________________________
Date: ________________________________________________________

iv
ABSTRACT
TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESS CONTINUITY MANAGEMENT IN THE
IRISH UNIVERSITY SECTOR
Mairéad Loughman
Universities advance knowledge through teaching and learning, research and scientific
investigation, and innovation. They are, however, on occasion, more reactive than proactive,
including in relation to business practices or corporate functions such as Risk Management,
Emergency Management and Business Continuity Management. Emergency and Business
Continuity Plans are frequently developed after rather than before a disruptive event or
emergency and may not be fully embedded in the organisation. University management wish
to follow good practice but are unsure where to find it. This research aimed to address this
research gap by answering the question:
What elements should inform effective Business Continuity Management
practice in the Irish University sector?
In this study, academic and business literature on BCM generally and in the university sector
and the ISO22301 standard for Business Continuity Management were reviewed. Indicative
characteristics of effective BCM practice were identified. A qualitative, exploratory
investigation into the current status of BCM in the Irish university sector, taking UCC as a
case study exemplar, was undertaken, using the themes identified in the literature review.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant senior personnel in UCC and an
external consultant, and the University’s Emergency Management & Business Continuity
Plan (2016) was analysed. Conclusions and recommendations, towards the development of a
framework for embedding effective BCM practice in Irish universities, are presented in the
final chapter. Because of the similarity of management structures, course offerings, research
programmes and the common funding base of Irish universities, it is considered that the
research findings will have applicability, appropriately adapted to local circumstances, across
the sector.

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Mary Loonam for her excellent advice
and guidance throughout this project and Dr Caroline McMullan for her energy and
enthusiasm and knowledge of her subject and for her care of and interest in her students.
I would also like to thank management and colleagues in UCC who assisted and encouraged
me at all steps of the MSc.
I would like to thank my husband Keith, my mother Mary and family for all their help,
support and patience during this very challenging but worthwhile programme.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ...........................................................................................................................ii
RESEARCH ETHICS DECLARATION ................................................................................ iii
ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................v
Glossary of Terms.....................................................................................................................ix
List of Figures............................................................................................................................x
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1
1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background context of the Research ...................................................................................1
1.1.1 Governance, Risk Management and Compliance in Irish Universities ............................2
1.2 Justification for the Research...............................................................................................3
1.3 Research Aim and Objectives..............................................................................................5
1.4 Research Methodology ........................................................................................................5
1.5 Summary..............................................................................................................................6
1.6 Organisation of the Dissertation ..........................................................................................7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................8
2.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................8
2.1 Business Continuity and Emergency/Crisis Management...................................................8
2.2 Business Continuity Management and Business Continuity Planning..............................12
2.3 BCM in Universities ..........................................................................................................14
2.3.1 USA Hurricanes Katrina 2005 and Gustav 2008............................................................16
2.3.2 Virginia Tech Campus Shooting April 2007 ..................................................................17
2.3.3 Australian National University, Canberra 2003 and 2007..............................................18
2.3.4 University of Canterbury Earthquakes September 2010 and February 2011 .................19
2.4 The Business Continuity Management Standards .............................................................20
2.5 The BCM Life-cycle..........................................................................................................22
2.6 Best Practice v. Good Practice...........................................................................................24
2.7 Leadership and Senior Management Support of the BCM Programme ............................26
2.8 Embedding Business Continuity in the Organisation’s Culture ........................................27
2.9 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................29
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...................................................................................31
3.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................31
3.1 Research Philosophy (layer 1) ...........................................................................................32
3.1.1 Philosophical stance: Epistemology ...............................................................................33
3.1.2 Philosophical stance: Ontology.......................................................................................34
3.1.3 Philosophical stance: Axiology.......................................................................................34
3.1.4 Pragmatism .....................................................................................................................36
3.1.5 Research Paradigms........................................................................................................38
3.2 Research Approach (layer 2) .............................................................................................39

vii
3.3 Research Design and Strategy (layer 3).............................................................................40
3.3.1 Research Design..............................................................................................................40
3.3.2 Research Strategy............................................................................................................40
3.3.2.1 Case Study ...................................................................................................................41
3.4 Research Method (layer 4).................................................................................................44
3.5 Time Horizons (layer 5).....................................................................................................45
3.6 Data Collection and Data Analysis Techniques (layer 6)..................................................45
3.6.1 Primary data....................................................................................................................46
3.6.2 Secondary data................................................................................................................47
3.7 Summary............................................................................................................................47
CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDY .........................................................................................................49
4.0 Introduction to UCC ..........................................................................................................49
4.1 Emergency Management and Business Continuity Management at UCC ........................51
4.2 Emergency Management & Business Continuity Plan, 2016............................................53
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................55
5.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................55
5.1 Primary Data: Collection and Thematic Analysis .............................................................55
5.1.1 Theme One: Business Continuity Planning....................................................................58
5.1.2 Theme Two: Good Practice ............................................................................................59
5.1.3 Theme Three: Leadership and role of senior management.............................................60
5.1.4 Theme Four: Culture.......................................................................................................62
5.1.5 Theme Five: Communications........................................................................................63
5.1.6 Theme Six: BCM as an ongoing cyclical process of continuous improvement .............64
5.1.7 Theme Seven: Resourcing BCM ....................................................................................65
5.1.8 Theme Eight: Insurance ..................................................................................................66
5.1.9 Theme Nine: Relationship between BCM and Risk Management (RM) .......................67
5.1.10 Theme Ten: Value of External Input ............................................................................68
5.2 Secondary Data: Collection and Analysis..........................................................................70
5.2.1 Theme One: Business Continuity Planning at UCC.......................................................70
5.2.6 Theme Six: BCM as an ongoing process of continuous improvement...........................74
5.2.9 Theme Nine: Relationship between BCM and Risk Management .................................76
5.3 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................77
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................78
6.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................78

viii
6.1 Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................79
6.1.1 Theme One: Business Continuity Process and Planning................................................79
6.1.6 Theme Six: BCM as an ongoing process of continuous improvement...........................85
6.1.9 Theme Nine: Relationship between BCM and Risk Management (RM) .......................86
6.2 Conclusion – Final Word...................................................................................................88
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................89
BIBLIOGRAPHY .........................................................................................................................98
APPENDICES............................................................................................................................111
Appendix A. Schematic of the Objects and Functions of the University and the Functions of
Governing Body and Academic Council (Universities Act, 1997) .......................................112
Appendix B. Sample of University incidents / emergencies that caused Business Interruption
................................................................................................................................................113
Appendix C. Sample of US University/College Campus Shootings Feb – Oct 2015 ...........114
Appendix D. PDCA model incorporated into ISO22301:2012 .............................................115
Appendix E. Kotter model for Change Management (1995).................................................116
Appendix F. Steps in Case Study for this Research...............................................................117
Appendix G. UCC organisational and senior management structure....................................118
Appendix H. Topics for Interviews .......................................................................................119
Appendix I. Checklist for Conduct of Interviews..................................................................121
Appendix J. UCC’s International rankings............................................................................123
Appendix K. UCC Campus Map, showing Main Quad, Library and other buildings...........124
Appendix L. UCC Campus Map, showing area of university located between River Lee
channels..................................................................................................................................125
Appendix M. Managing Your Business Continuity Planning Project...................................126

ix
Glossary of Terms
BC Business Continuity
BCM Business Continuity Management
BCP Business Continuity Plan
BI Business Interruption (insurance)
CM Crisis Management
EM Emergency Management
EMT Emergency Management Team
ERM Enterprise Risk Management
ERP Emergency Response Plan
HE Higher Education
HEA Higher Education Authority
HEI Higher Education Institution
MEM Major Emergency Management
OCLA Office of Corporate and Legal Affairs
PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Act model of management system methodology
RM Risk Management
SRM Strategic Risk Management
UCC University College Cork
UMT-O University Management Team - Operations
UMT-S University Management Team – Strategy
URMG University Risk Management Group

x
List of Figures
Figure no. Title Page number
Figure 1.1 Structure of the dissertation 7
Figure 2.1 Anticipated events compared with Actual events 10
Figure 2.2 Linear presentation of an incident 11
Figure 2.3 Four-Stage Emergency Management lifecycle 11
Figure 2.4 Five-Stage Emergency Management Paradigm 11
Figure 2.5 The BCM Unifying Process 21
Figure 2.6 The BCM lifecycle : BS25999-1:2006 23
Figure 2.7 The BCM lifecycle: ISO22301:2012 23
Figure 3.1 The Research Onion 32
Figure 3.2 Four Paradigms for the analysis of social theory 38
Figure 3.3 Steps in Case Study Research 41
Figure 3.4 Research Choices 44
Figure 3.5 The Research Onion – choices circled 47
Figure 4.1 UCC Institutional Profile 2012/13 50
Figure 4.2 National Risk Assessment Matrix for Ireland 2012 53
Figure 5.1 The BCM lifecycle: ISO22301:2012 65
Figure 5.2 BCM: The Unifying Process 68
Figure 5.3 UCC EM&BCM Planning Process Continuum 70
Figure 5.4 Risk Matrix for UCC 76

xi
List of Tables
Table no. Title Page number
Table 2.1 Six University Emergency / Business Continuity examples 15
Table 2.2 Steps to implementing Organisational Culture Change 28
Table 3.1 Comparison of Research Philosophies in Management Research 37
Table 3.2 Summary of Philosophy and Methodology in this Research 48
Table 5.1 Profile of Interviewees 55
Table 5.2 Themes identified in Literature Review and during Research 57
Table 6.1 Internal BCM Communications 84

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
This research will examine Business Continuity in the Irish university sector. This chapter
presents an overview of the dissertation, the aims and objectives of the research and the
research question. It sets the context for the dissertation by explaining the background to and
rationale for the study. It also explains the research methodology. The chapter concludes
with an outline of the dissertation chapters.
1.1 Background context of the Research
There are seven state-funded universities in the Republic of Ireland. While independent and
autonomous, each university operates within a framework stipulated by the Universities Act
1997. The schematic in Appendix A summarises the provisions of the Act, which, inter alia,
includes sections on the objects (objectives) and functions of a university, the bicameral
governance and decision-making structure, Governing Body and Academic Council, and the
responsibilities assigned to each. Academic freedom, which allows academic staff to
question perceived wisdom, suggest new ideas and offer controversial or unpopular opinions,
is an important principle in universities which must be protected and respected (Universities
Act 1997).
Universities advance knowledge through teaching and learning, research and scientific
investigation, and innovation. They educate students, fostering effective citizenship,
connectedness and economic competence, while contributing to national cultural, economic,
and social development (Universities Act 1997).
Key university stakeholders include central government / Minister for Education and Skills,
the Higher Education Authority (HEA), public/taxpayers, industry partners, research funding
agencies, staff, students and alumni.

2
1.1.1 Governance, Risk Management and Compliance in Irish Universities
The HEA has statutory responsibility to central government for the effective governance and
regulation of the publicly-funded Irish higher education (HE) sector, including its 7
universities, especially in the areas of strategic planning and financial management.
Institutional strategies must align with national strategic objectives for higher education.
(www.hea.ie/ accessed 3/7/2016).
Risk Management is one of three pillars, along with governance and compliance, that work
together to ensure that an organisation meets its strategic objectives (Reding et al, 2013). It is
now a more extensive area of business activity in its previous provenance, having “evolved
from an insurance and transaction-based function into a much broader concept that is linked
to both corporate governance and the achievement of strategic objectives” (Woods 2008,
p.3). Selim & McNamee (1999, p.161) describe the “major paradigm shifts in organisations’
approach to Risk Management”, specifically when predicting and managing risks that could
hinder the organisation in achieving its objectives.
Risk Management is also a corporate function, helping to ensure good governance in
universities (HEA 2012). The HEA provides guidelines for Risk Management in its Code of
Governance for Irish Universities (HEA 2012, p.30, pp.48-49). Though voluntary, university
compliance with the Code is required and audited annually by the HEA. The Code does not
address EM and BCM separately, these are implicit in the Risk Management Framework.
A recent external audit (Ryan 2014), benchmarking Risk Management (RM) at UCC against
the international standard for risk management, ISO31000, recommended the adoption of an
Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) approach which would involve the integration of RM,
Emergency Management (EM) and Business Continuity Management (BCM) towards
becoming a ‘risk intelligent’ enterprise (Deloitte 2013).

3
1.2 Justification for the Research
Like any business, a university may be at risk of financial and/or reputational loss from any
disruption or interruption to part or all of its operations at any time. Consequences of
significant disruption may include inability to provide teaching, leading to student
withdrawals and/or delay/interruption to programmes; inability to accept new student cohorts,
especially international students; decrease in demand causing uncertainty regarding
programme continuity, leading to reduction in/loss of fee income / government grants;
interruption to research programmes resulting in costs to recreate lost experiments and/or
recompile data; delays/inability to meet research contract deadlines; impact on potential to
compete for new research contracts; costs of setting up alternative premises for classes,
examinations, research, sporting activities and/or accommodation and catering; loss of
income from commercial activities; adverse impact on reputation resulting from any or all of
the above.
Not all risks, whether business risks or emergency-related risks may be insured against.
Insurance may cover financial loss in whole or in part. Reputational loss however is not
insurable and may continue to adversely affect the university long after damaged
infrastructure has been repaired. The impact on the university’s attractiveness to students,
especially international students, may last long after business has been resumed while the
impact on research output, which determines institutional reputation to a significant extent,
may last even longer.
It is clear that it is prudent to prepare for and plan to mitigate risks, having regard to the
nature of individual risks. In addition to governance and compliance requirements,
international experience and experience at UCC point to the importance of developing a
Business Continuity Management (BCM) process to assist the university if/when disruption
to business continuity occurs. The impetus for the development of an Emergency Response

4
Plan (ERP) in UCC, in the first instance, was the major flooding in Cork in November 2009
and its effect on UCC. The university had to close for a week, there was longer-term impact
on accommodation, facilities and services and some of the university’s research activities.
The financial cost to restore business to normal was €18.5m. If BCM involves identifying
and analysing key organisational objectives, asking what is the worst that can happen? and
preparing for the worst, the floods of November 2009 constitute a perfect example.
The ERP developed by UCC (approved 2013) was devised in-house on the basis of
institutional expertise and experience in dealing with the flood but without reference to the
Major Emergency Management (MEM) Framework, the ISO standards, or review of the
academic or practitioner literature. Reference to these areas was made subsequently. UCC
wishes to ensure that the ongoing BCM process and the new Emergency and Business
Continuity Management Plan (approved 2016) are in line with best international practice.
In this context it and from a preliminary consideration of the literature, it appears that, while
significant research has been undertaken on Risk Management in universities, there is less on
EM and BCM in universities (Griffin 2010, Wang & Hutchins 2010). From knowledge of
Irish universities and membership of the University Risk Management Group (URMG), this
researcher considers Risk Management in practice in Irish universities to be relatively
mature, but that EM and BCM are less so. This research will contribute to filling the research
gap on EM/BCM in universities by investigating existing academic BCM theory and best
international BCM practice during the Literature Review in Chapter 2. BCM practice at
UCC will be explored through the research undertaken and set out in Chapters 3, 4 and 5.
This work will inform recommendations for development of a BCM process in the university
sector, which, while having UCC as its particular focus, will, it is considered, identify
essential elements in the planning and constitution of effective BCM in any Irish university.

5
1.3 Research Aim and Objectives
The overall aim and focus of this research, therefore, is to investigate the current state of
BCM in the Irish university sector, using UCC as a case study, and, through reviewing the
available academic and business literature on BCM, to make recommendations towards the
development of a route map for embedding effective BCM practice in Irish universities.
The Research Question posed is,
The specific objectives are:
1. To explore BCM generally with a view to gaining insight into its meaning and
application and identifying critical success factors in practice, specifically with regard
to its application in Irish universities (Chapter 2 Literature Review)
2. To investigate current BCM practice at UCC as an exemplar of Irish universities
(Chapters 3, 4 & 5 Research)
3. To make recommendations towards the continued development and rollout of a BCM
Framework which would be applicable in UCC and which would inform good BCM
practice across the Irish university sector (Chapter 6 Conclusion &
Recommendations).
1.4 Research Methodology
The research methodology and underlying philosophy will be the subject of Chapter 3. The
research will comprise an Exploratory Case Study, the primary qualitative data being
collected from carrying out seven one-to-one semi-structured interviews with individual
members of the UCC senior management who are involved in Emergency & BCM and one
external professional in the area of Risk Management, who has worked with and advised Irish
universities on insurance, Risk Management and Business Continuity.

6
As a secondary approach, data will be collected using document analysis on the new UCC
E/BCM Plan. The data will be analysed using thematic analysis.
1.5 Summary
Universities operate like towns or small cities i.e. communities (Yanosky 2007). Prof Gerry
Wrixon, former president of UCC, commented in 1999, just after taking up the post, that
modern universities must consider themselves as a business and he viewed himself as "the
chief executive of a major industry involved in higher education".
Not all business management frameworks and models are familiar or suitable to the
university sector but, like any business, universities may suffer the consequences of a
business interruption and should have a system in place to ensure business continuity despite
the interruption. Friesen & Bell (2006) identified some unique characteristics of universities
which may affect implementation of BCM including, that academia and administration are
structured in hierarchies which may function separately on a day-to-day basis, but need to
operate together with regard to emergencies and BCM; that the culture of accessibility and
openness which promotes diversity and critical thinking in universities may or may not be
helpful in decision-making relating to emergencies and BCM; that university campuses may
be spread over several and/or satellite locations; that university staff and students are often
multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary and, as individuals, may respond in different ways to
emergency situations and to the management of such situations; and that parents may be
involved, especially for international students. There may be further complicating factors
related to semi-autonomous or subsidiary entities operating within the university such as art
or science galleries, theatres, sports facilities, etc.
It is hoped that this research will have intrinsic and practical merit for both the host institution
(UCC) as well as the university sector in general.

7
1.6 Organisation of the Dissertation
The following figure shows an outline of the dissertation structure and chapters.
Figure 1.1 Structure of the dissertation
Source: Developed by Author
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Introduce Chapter
Background to the Research
Justification for the Research
Research Aim and Objectives
Research Methodology
Summary
Organisation of the
dissertation
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE
REVIEW
Business Continuity and
Emergency/Crisis Management
BCM and BCP
BCM in Universities
4 Case studies
The BCM Standards and Life-
cycle
Best Practice
Leadership of BCM
Embedding BCM
Summary and Conclusions
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
Research Question and Objectives
Research Philosophy
Research Approach
Research Design + Strategy
Research Method
Time Horizons
Data Collection + Analysis
Ethics
Summary
CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDY
University College Cork
CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
Primary Data: Themes
Secondary Data: Themes
Conclusion
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
Conclusions and
Recommendations based on
themes
Conclusion – Final Word

8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
The Literature Review addresses Objective #1 of the Research
TO explore Business Continuity Management (BCM) generally with a view to gaining
insight into its meaning and application and identifying critical success factors in
practice - specifically with regard to its application in Irish universities.
This chapter explores Business Continuity, especially in the context of Emergency/Crisis
Management. Academic literature in the area is considered together with a number of cases
where continuity of operations in universities was an issue following an emergency. The
Business Continuity Management (BCM) standard and Life-cycle will be introduced and
reviewed. Themes relating to good BCM practice in the university sector will emerge from
the review. These will be discussed and used to guide the research.
2.1 Business Continuity and Emergency/Crisis Management
A business must continue operating even when faced with an interruption related to a
disruptive incident such as a crisis or emergency. Crises and emergencies are not confined to
death / injury situations. Not all crises lead to business interruption. Because most business
interruptions are caused by a crisis or emergency, this chapter will review these before
proceeding to examining Business Continuity. The words crisis and emergency are used
interchangeably in this dissertation, as they are in the literature. US authors seem to favour
the word crisis, emergency seems to be more used in the UK/Europe.
When defining crisis/emergency, terms such as major occurrence, unexpected and negative
outcome are used frequently, (Fearn-Banks 1996, 2009, Framework 2006, Zdziarski 2007).
Fink defines crisis as a time when a decisive change is pending which may prove positive or
negative, i.e. with the possible potential outcome being undesirable or desirable Fink (1986).

9
Zdziarski’s definition is geared towards the university:
...an event, which is often sudden or unexpected, that disrupts the normal operations of
the institution or its educational mission and threatens the well-being of personnel,
property, financial resources and/or the reputation of the institution
(Rollo & Zdziarski 2007, pp.27-28).
Earlier theorists, such as Hermann (1963), were not convinced that potential emergencies
could be foreseen. Recent authors (e.g. Fink 1986, 2002, Gunning 2003, Alexander 2002,
Coppola 2007) advocate anticipating and preparing for possible emergency situations. Fink
(1986) believed that a crisis is a matter of when, not if, i.e. inevitable, hence the title of his
seminal work Crisis Management: Planning for the Inevitable. Gunning (2003, p.269)
shared this view:
Every company, every organisation, has a crisis waiting to happen. Some can be
anticipated; others seem to strike out of the clear blue sky. One thing is certain if you are
not prepared, long-term damage is unavoidable.
The following figure shows the results of a survey of business managers anticipating likely
disruptive events in one year versus what actually happened during the following year. It can
be seen that all of the foreseen events did occur, but not to the scale expected. Nevertheless,
it would clearly be prudent to have prepared for such events as extreme weather and
school/childcare closures where anticipated and actual were almost equal.

10
Figure 2.1 Anticipated events compared with Actual events
Source: Chartered Management Institute cited by Goodenough 2016
No organisation is immune from the occasional disruptive incident, caused by one or more
risks, known, emerging and/or unforeseen, as categorised by Sharp (2012). Some risks may
be insured against. Most can be prepared for. There is no reason, for example, for being
surprised by severe weather emergencies which tend to be cyclical in nature and in respect of
which there are usually advance warnings from the meteorological services and the media.
It has been shown that, in almost all cases, the benefits of planning and preparedness
outweigh the costs (Alexander 2002). This applies to both Emergency Management (EM)
and Business Continuity Management (BCM), the latter the focus of this study. On a linear
timeline, BC preparation for a disruptive incident occurs pre-incident and implementation of
a BC Plan occurs during the Response, Management and Recovery phases.

11
Figure 2.2 Linear presentation of an incident
Source: David Gregory, Director, BGG Associates Ltd
Alexander (2002) and Copolla (2007) developed a cyclical four-stage lifecycle concept to
explain the EM process. This was adapted for use in Ireland in the Five-Stage Emergency
Management Paradigm.
Figure 2.3 Four-Stage Emergency Management lifecycle
Source: Copolla 2007
Figure 2.4 Five-Stage Emergency Management Paradigm
Source: Framework for MEM 2006

12
The implication of cyclical modelling for any process, including EM, is to show an integrated
system of planning and preparation, mitigation, response, recovery and review, where
experience of managing an emergency, informs the planning for the next one i.e. a process of
continuous improvement and constant updating of plans and management systems. This is
also applicable in the BCM context as will be seen later in the chapter.
EM and BCM are intrinsically linked. While EM handles the incident and its immediate
aftermath in its Response and Recovery phases and is specific to the incident time wise,
effective BCM ensures that an organisation can continue its business activities and processes
during and after an emergency “without missing a beat” (Vancoppenolle quoted in Hiles
2007, p.24). Full recovery may be longer-term, which is where BCM comes into play. BCM
overlaps with EM during the EM Recovery phase (Glenn 2002, quoted in Botha & Solms
2004) but continues where EM leaves off, for days, weeks, months or possibly even years,
however long it takes to return to business as normal.
Some aspects of planning for both EM and BCM may overlap and may be undertaken
simultaneously although business continuity “activities should complement but be clearly
distinguished from emergency planning activities” (AUSCO 2014, p.32). Together EM and
BCM processes provide an organisation with a robust framework to assist in a quick recovery
of operations after a disruption (Maloney 2012).
2.2 Business Continuity Management and Business Continuity Planning
Business Continuity is defined as: “the capability of the organisation to continue delivery of
products or services at acceptable predefined levels following a disruptive incident” while a
Business Continuity Plan (BCP) refers to the “documented procedures that guide
organizations to respond, recover, resume, and restore to a pre-defined level of operation
following disruption. Typically this covers resources, services and activities required to

13
ensure the continuity of critical business functions.” Business Continuity Management
(BCM) is “a holistic management process that identifies potential threats to an organization
and the impacts to business operations those threats, if realised, might cause, and which
provides a framework for building organizational resilience with the capability of an effective
response that safeguards the interests of its key stakeholders, reputation, brand and value-
creating activities”.(ISO22301:2012)
There is some debate in the literature about the importance or necessity of (Business
Continuity) Planning as a major constituent process within the overall BCM system in an
organisation. The majority viewpoint is that preparedness and pre-planning are key to
ensuring that critical business processes continue while an organisation is recovering from a
crisis (Botha & Solms 2004). According to Fink (1986) there is a 50-50 chance of a positive
or negative outcome in a crisis; he suggested that Business Continuity planning may improve
the odds.
Dynes et al, quoted in Lindell, Prater & Perry 2007, also emphasise the importance and
centrality of preparing and continuously improving Business Continuity Plans within the
BCM process. They suggest the following steps with regard to Business Continuity
planning: develop a plan, make sure that individuals and teams have the necessary expertise
and resources, review performance and make any adjustments necessary to the plan.
Irish researchers Kelly & McMullan, key authors on BCM in an Irish context to-date,
advocate BCM and BCP, particularly with regard to protecting an organisation’s reputation,
brand and value-creating activities. They advise that effective BCM offers significant
rewards and is now a business necessity (Kelly & McMullan 2011).
Some authors remain unconvinced of the value of planning for emergencies and Business
Continuity. Copenhaver & Lindstedt (2010) cite Gosling & Hiles’ (2009) challenge to the
traditional assumptions and assertions of the benefits of BCP and contend that there are too

14
many anecdotes and case studies and not enough hard evidence of its value. Bird (quoted in
Hiles 2007, p.xv) remarks that BCM is a “diverse, rapidly evolving and at times still a
controversial subject”. Copenhaver & Lindstedt (2010, p.169) agree with Bird, suggesting
that further research is warranted “to determine the efficacy of BC Planning”. The
differences of opinion regarding the importance of BCP and BCM may be due to its relative
infancy as a business discipline (Kelly & McMullan 2011).
2.3 BCM in Universities
The newness of BCM as a mainstream business discipline is noted in a Higher
Education/University context by Wang & Hutchins (2010). This research considers some
crisis issues that have arisen and the relevance of BCM in the university sector. Griffin
(2010) noted a lack of published articles on Emergency Management in Irish universities.
This author noted the scarcity of academic (peer-reviewed) literature relating to Business
Continuity in universities in any country, prompting this research.
Such literature as is available and the development of university crisis plans is mainly based
on lessons learned from emergency situations, i.e. reactive as opposed to proactive (Zdziarski
2001), rather than on standards, regulation or legislation, the absence of which was noted by
Friesen & Bell (2006) in the context of Canadian universities. Examples of BCM practice in
universities are provided by masters dissertations (Griffin 2010, Maloney 2012), PhD theses
(Coleman 2009, McCullar 2011), published articles (Meehan 2003, Meehan 2007, Kelly &
McMullan 2011 and Seville, Hawker & Lyttle 2011) – which will be included in this review.
Universities, like other business organisations must ensure continuity of core services and
protect their revenue streams to maintain operational credibility and financial sustainability.
Educational institutions, such as universities are not immune to the impacts of emergencies or
crises (Miller 2002), such as loss of revenue or increase in costs needed to continue in

15
business. There may be even more serious consequences, such as being forced to change the
way they operate or even to shut down (Dolan 2006).
Universities have responsibility to staff and students, and to other stake holders (e.g.
Government and research partners). They have a duty of care to students, especially those
who live on-campus. Despite the fact that every student loves a good snow day, even where
valuable learning time is lost (University Business 2015), “an interrupted education can have
devastating consequences” (Yanosky 2007, p.22).
The following sections examine six documented major emergencies in five universities in the
USA, Australia and New Zealand which incurred disruption to business continuity between
2005 and 2011. Each case discussed includes reference to key lessons learned in each event
and points to issues that may arise in other university emergencies. (See Appendix B for a
longer listing of emergency incidents in universities 2003-2016).
COUNTRY CRISIS/EMERGENCY AUTHORS : University
USA Hurricane Katrina (2005)
Hurricane Gustav (2008)
Coleman (2009): University of Southern Mississippi
McCullar (2011): Louisiana State University
Mass shooting (2007) Wang & Hutchins (2010): Virginia Tech
Australia
Bushfires (2003) Meehan (2007): Australia National University
Supercell storm (2007) Meehan (2008): Australia National University
New Zealand
Earthquake (2011)
Seville, Hawker & Lyttle (2011):
University of Canterbury, Christchurch
Table 2.1 Six University Emergency / Business Continuity examples
Developed by Author

16
2.3.1 USA Hurricanes Katrina 2005 and Gustav 2008
The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 brought a resurgence of interest in BCP generally
(Yanosky 2007). Coleman (2009) and McCullar (2011) document the impact of Hurricane
Katrina on universities and their students in the affected region, including distribution of
students to other HE institutions to continue their education (Coleman 2009). Over 1,000
institutions accepted 18,000 Katrina-displaced students from six closed universities in the
state of Louisiana (The National Student Clearinghouse 2005, cited by Coleman 2009).
A long-tailed financial and reputational loss in several affected institutions was that many
students who transferred when they closed did not return to their original institutions when
they reopened. Re-enrolment figures for New Orleans universities were particularly low: <50
per cent for Tulane University, 27 per cent for the University of New Orleans. At Delgado
College in Baton Rouge, which had invoked a Business Continuity measure by providing
courses online, the strategy backfired. Only 13 per cent of their students returned to Delgado
when normal business resumed (Southern Education Foundation Report 2007, cited by
Coleman 2009).
Katrina also affected staff. There were large-scale job losses across Katrina-zone institutions
generally (Yanosky 2007). Over 100 staff members at the University of Southern Mississippi
lost their homes (Coleman 2009).
Key lessons:
Coleman’s justification for his research was to help management to prepare for future crisis
situations (Becker 2006) …. in order to “rebound quicker” (Coleman 2009, p.11).
McCullar’s research showed how a better campus crisis plan, prepared after Katrina, stood
Louisiana State University (LSU) well when Gustav struck in 2008 (McCullar 2011).
Problems and mistakes regarding keeping track of students and safe evacuation of the campus
during Katrina had been resolved by the time Gustav arrived (Mangan 2008, cited by

17
McCullar 2011). However, as Gustav hit Baton Rouge directly, LSU, despite an increased
level of preparedness, was more severely impacted than during Katrina and a year later had
still not recovered fully from the storm (Meaux 2009, cited by McCullar 2011). The value of
preparation and pre-planning was evident in these two cases, but, while lessening the impact,
did not eliminate it completely.
2.3.2 Virginia Tech Campus Shooting April 2007
The importance of BCM in a university context came “into sharp focus” (Curley 2011, p.8)
after the world’s worst campus shooting “massacre” (McCullar 2011, p.6) at Virginia Tech in
April 2007 which resulted in 32 fatalities. Prior to this, most disruptive incidents in
universities were the result of physical causes such as adverse weather and earthquakes. This
incident was an example of new campus crises such as disruptive fan behaviour, celebratory
violence, missing students, technology breaches and acts of terrorism (Rodriguez 2008).
Key lessons
Virginia Tech management were severely criticised for their perceived lack of planning and
preparedness (Wang & Hutchins 2010), for not communicating with students and for
withholding information during the incident (Adubato 2008, cited by McCullar 2011). The
US government fined Virginia Tech $55,000 alleged failure to provide timely warnings
during the incident; this delay contributed to thirty more students being killed after the initial
two murders. (Swaine 2011).
(See Appendix C for a sample of US university/college campus shooting incidents February-
October 2015).

18
2.3.3 Australian National University, Canberra 2003 and 2007
Meehan (2007, 2008) documented two separate incidents at the Australian National
University (ANU), Canberra in 2003 (bushfires) and 2007 (supercell storm). In common
with many organisations, ANU had Business Continuity plans in place in an IT disaster
recovery context since around 2000, in preparation for the Y2K date change risk (Meehan
2007), a crisis anticipated both in type and time, which never materialised. The events of
9/11 (2001) reminded the ANU campus community that disasters could come in any form
(Meehan 2007). University management became concerned about the effectiveness of the
existing BCM programme and set about devising new strategies/plans which were tested
assiduously during 2002.
Key lessons:
Despite bushfires not being among the scenarios rehearsed, ANU’s response to the fires in
January 2003 was deemed “relatively effective” by the university management (Meehan
2007, p.188). The university’s response to the storm in 2007 was deemed “largely effective”
by the university management (Meehan 2008, p.380). Lessons learned from the bushfire
experience (2003) had been incorporated into the updated Emergency/BCP by 2007. The
campus infrastructure was very different to the one destroyed in 2003 (Meehan 2007). Two
management decisions in particular, paid dividends in terms of the recovery and return to
normal business after the storm:
(i) use of long-term maintenance and cleaning contractors, who prioritised the university
over other businesses after the storm passed and
(ii) the appointment of a University Insurance/Claims manager which prevented the
protracted litigation experienced after the bushfires disruption.
One issue that was not anticipated was the impact of the campus closure on new (including
international) students in campus accommodation who were unsettled by the experience.

19
2.3.4 University of Canterbury Earthquakes September 2010 and February 2011
The University of Canterbury (UC) in Christchurch, New Zealand, suffered severe damage
following the earthquakes in September 2010 (NZ Herald, 2010) and February 2011. The
2011 earthquake caused considerable damage to the university’s buildings, and also affected
the confidence and morale of its students (Turner 2013). Although there were no deaths or
serious injuries on campus, the impact of aftershocks, which continued for several months
after the initial event, were unexpectedly significant and demoralizing (Seville, Hawker &
Lyttle 2011).
In the months following the earthquakes, UC lost 25 per cent of its first-year students, 8 per
cent of continuing students and 30 per cent of international students (Law 2011). Others who
might have come to study decided to go elsewhere (Turner 2013). Other New Zealand
universities, defying an informal agreement, launched billboard and print advertising
campaigns to recruit UC students who were experiencing difficulties (TVNZ 2011), totally
opposite to the spirit noted after the Hurricane Katrina event. In October 2011, staff were
offered voluntary redundancies as the institution sought to recover from quake-related
financial problems (The Australian 2011).
Key lessons
The UC report acknowledged the contribution of staff and students to the response and
recovery after the earthquake and critically reflected on what worked well and the aspects
that, in hindsight, could have been done better. The report acknowledged benefitting from
experiences documented and shared by other universities around the world and documents 40
lessons learned from UC’s own earthquake experience and its wish “to pass forward the
favour and enable others to benefit from the lessons that we have learnt from this event”
(Seville, Hawker, & Lyttle 2011, p.7).
However, the report was written soon after the event and many of the adverse impacts were
longer-term and not evident when the report was being written. For example, Government

20
made up the $19m/year shortfall in income (The Press 2012) due to loss of students in 2011
and 2012 but this did not continue from 2013. There were also long-tailed staff layoffs, cuts
to teaching programmes, negative impact on national and international rankings and much-
reduced philanthropy (Matthews 2012).
Major learnings echoed similar themes as in other cases: the value of planning, the role of
BCM leaders and champions, the importance of fostering good relationships with key
external agencies and suppliers and appointing an insurance claims officer (Seville, Hawker
& Lyttle 2011).
The experiences documented in these case studies indicate key characteristics to underpin
effective BCM in the Irish university sector for which there are few recent publications,
despite occurrences including a major flood impacting University College Cork in November
2009.
Consideration will now be given to examining the BCM standards, BS25999 and
ISO22301:2012 with a view to identifying key characteristics in a general sense.
2.4 The Business Continuity Management Standards
International standards are developed as a culmination of research into good practice in
various fields and help overcome ambiguity which may lead to organisational vulnerability
(Marincioni & Fraboni 2012). The international standard for Risk Management,
ISO31000:2012, recommends adopting an Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) approach
which integrates Strategic Risk Management, Emergency Management and BCM processes
in order to become a risk intelligent organisation, echoing a suggestion by Copenhaver &
Lindstedt (2010) about combining BCM with related business practices.

21
The British Continuity Institute (BCI) proposed an alternative, arguably broader, more
holistic, concept for complementary disciplines (GPG 2013), namely the BCM umbrella /
Unifying Process shown in Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5 BCM: The Unifying Process
Source: British Continuity Institute (BCI) 2002
The British Standards Institute (BSI) is “the world's first national Standards Body and a
founding member of the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)” and “helps
organisations make excellence a habit” (www.bsigroup.com/).
In 2006, the BSI developed and published the first BCM standard, BS25999, to guide
organisations through the formal requirements for BCM, including development of the
business continuity plan (Taylor 2006). Prior to the development of the standard there was a
perceived lack of a focused, holistic approach to BCM (Copenhaver & Lindstedt 2010). The
introduction of the standard proved beneficial in filling this gap. Ellwood (2009), cited by
Garrett (2012), recommended using the standard as a fundamental guidance to successfully

22
embedding BCM in an organisation. In 2012/13 the BS25999 standard was withdrawn and
replaced by twin international Standards for BCM, viz.ISO22301:2012 BCM Systems –
Requirements and ISO22313:2014 BCM Systems – Guidance, which then became the
accepted major universal documents on BCM.
ISO22301:2012 is mapped against the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) model (Appendix D),
based on the work of Walter Shewhart in the 1930s and Edwards Deming in the 1950s, to
plan, establish, implement, operate, monitor, review, maintain and continually improve the
organisation’s BCM system. PDCA methodology “is used extensively to achieve continual
improvement in management systems” (Sharp 2012, p.12). It is already familiar to business
managers, including in the university sector, from its use in other management system
standards (e.g. ISO9001-Quality, ISO14001-Environmental Management, ISO/IEC27001-
Information Security etc.), “thereby supporting consistent and integrated implementation and
operations with related management systems” (ISO22301:2012, p.v).
2.5 The BCM Life-cycle
The BCM standard(s), compiled from expert BCM practice worldwide and complementing
academic theory, are based on a six-stage lifecycle model, which, like EM, “is an ongoing,
interactive process” (Kelly & McMullan 2011, p.5). The six stages are referred to as
Professional Practices (two being management related and four technical related).

23
Figure 2.6 The BCM lifecycle : BS25999-1:2006
Source: BS25999-1:2006
Figure 2.7 The BCM lifecycle: ISO22301:2012
Source: GPG 2013
Both standards place the two strategic management practices, (1) Policy & Programme
Management and (2) Embedding BCM in either the hub or the rim of the wheel signifying
their importance.
Both standards place the four technical/operational practices, normally conducted by BCP
professionals, as the spokes of the wheel:
1. Understanding the Organisation / Analysis
2. Determining BCM Strategies / Design
3. Developing and Implementing a BCM Response / Implementation
4. Exercising, Maintaining and Reviewing / Validation.
The BCM Lifecycle, together with the ISO standard(s), is central to good BCM practice and
ensures the success of the BCM Programme and its continued value to the organisation; the
combination of the two is described as a “watershed in the evolution of BCM” (Kelly &
McMullan 2011, p.17).

24
2.6 Best Practice v. Good Practice
The Business Dictionary defines best practice as
a method or technique that has consistently shown results superior to those achieved with
other means, and that is used as a benchmark. In addition, a ‘best practice’ can evolve to
become better as improvements are discovered.
[www.businessdictionary.com/definition/best-practice.html#ixzz43XMUdOOL]
This definition conforms to the Japanese philosophy of Kaizen, meaning change for the
better. One can always improve, especially in an emerging discipline such as BCM,
evidenced by the updating of the BS25999 to ISO22301.
There is some debate in the literature as to the meaning of best practice and how to
differentiate between good and best practice. Bardach (2011) argues that work worthy of
being deemed best practice is rarely done, however good or smart it may be. Ambler (2014)
challenges the notion that any practice may be considered best in all cases. He contends that
quality of practice depends on the context i.e. contextual practice, where what is best will
vary with the context.
With regard to BCM, Hiles (2011, p.564) remarked that the BS25999 standard was
“imprecise in places and illogical in sequence” but also that it
provides good general guidelines and useful checklists in the form of identified outputs
but it is more of a management overview than a practitioner’s guide.
He predicted that “despite its faults, however, it may well emerge as a fully-fledged standard
over the next few years” Hiles 2011, p.564), a prediction which materialised with the
development of the ISO22301 standard (2012) and ISO22313 (2014).
It is sometimes a challenge to determine how an organisation’s BCM provision measures up
against business or industry standards in practice (CSU 2004). Sharp (2012) cited the ISO
standard as a uniform measure of good practice i.e. a recognised industry benchmark against
which BC professionals and organisations may be effectively measured and certified (BCI

25
2016). According to the Business Continuity Institute’s Horizon Scan report 2016, 51 per
cent of organisations claim using ISO22301:2012 as a framework for BCM (BCI 2016).
The value of a standard is that it provides an objective template for doing the right thing in
the right way, thereby producing a reliable audit trail and limiting subjective or spur-of-the-
moment decision making, particularly when introducing a relatively new and dynamic
process such as BCM into a constantly changing environment.
The Good Practice Guidelines (GPG 2013) were developed to assist with interpreting and
using the standard and lifecycle diagram. They advocate good rather than a best practice.
They address the ‘what’, ‘why’, ‘how’ and ‘when’ of the standard, following “the stages of
activity that an organisation moves through and repeats with the overall aim of improving
organisational resilience” (GPG 2013, p.13). The GPG 2013 itself has also “been subject to a
stringent quality assurance process to ensure it continues to drive the highest standards in BC
practice worldwide” (www.thebci.org/index.php/resources/the-good-practice-guidelines).
Having reviewed the case studies and the ISO22301 standard for BCM, it may be concluded
that BCM in a university context would benefit from certain key characteristics covered in the
standard such as: having an updated BCP in place based on continuous review and
improvement of the plan including any revisions to the standard or new knowledge in the light
of experience or developing theory, also based on debriefing after an event and incorporating
the learnings from rehearsals and/or events into revised plans, identifying BCP/BCM leaders
and champions, active involvement of university senior management, communication with
both internal and external stakeholders during and after incidents until normality is restored,
building relationships with external agencies and appointing an insurance liaison person.
Friesen & Bell (2006) include leadership, senior management involvement, an identifiable
coordinator and a comprehensive communications strategy on their list of considerations for
universities implementing BCM initiatives. The following two sections will focus on the two

26
strategic management stages in the BCM lifecycle, i.e. Policy & Programme Management and
Embedding BCM into the culture of the organisation.
2.7 Leadership and Senior Management Support of the BCM Programme
“Leadership is important at the best of times; during the worst of times it becomes vital”
(Sterling et al 2012, p.160). Leadership and leadership responsibilities of senior management
is a new section (clause 5) in the ISO22301 standard, confirming its importance as a key
element in BCM (Podolak 2002, Friesen & Bell 2006). Clear commitment and direction
from the top must be present and permeate throughout the organisation, especially when
introducing BCM into an organisation as resources and support are required (Kelly &
McMullan 2011).
Organisational leaders and senior management make the strategic decision to commit to
BCM, having been convinced by such key drivers as sustainability, reputation, insurance
requirements, etc. (Gallagher 2003, Sharp 2012). They demonstrate commitment to the BCM
process by agreeing the policy, plan and strategy, assigning resources and defining roles,
responsibilities and decision-making authority, especially for such matters as governance and
criteria for invoking the BC plan.
Radnor & Bucci (2008) cite strong leadership and visible management support, effective
communications and appropriate training as the key success factors for continually improving
any process. This can be applied to BCM. The ISO22301 standard has higher requirements
than the earlier BS25999 standard for demonstrable evidence of top management
commitment to BCM and also higher communication requirements. In the ISO22301
standard which superimposes the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) model onto the BCM process
(Appendix D), the two management practices, Policy and Programme Management and
Embedding BCM, match the Plan section of the PDCA model. Management Review of the

27
process falls into the Check section and Continuous Improvement of all elements of BCM, is
dealt with in the Act section.
The four technical practices in the BCM lifecycle, normally conducted by BCP professionals
and not by senior management, feature in the Do section of the PDCA model and are not
discussed in this dissertation.
Clause 6 of the standard deals with planning, the first of five basic general managerial
functions identified by Stroh, Northcraft & Neale (2002). In a Business Continuity context,
planning is the key activity and an important responsibility of senior management, i.e.
preparing/signing off on the BC plans, resourcing, evaluating and revising (improving) as
necessary, and arguably the most important part of the BCM cycle (Dynes 2007).
Clause 7 deals with management support of BCM, specifically with regard to resourcing and
communications. A plan fails without appropriate resourcing and communication to relevant
interested parties/stakeholders (ISO22301:2012).
Embedding BCM in the organisation’s culture, the second professional practice of
leaders/senior managers is detailed in the following section.
2.8 Embedding Business Continuity in the Organisation’s Culture
Strong committed leadership is necessary to root BCM firmly in an organisation’s culture in
order to “continue to grow in terms of resilience and maintain key functions and outputs in
times of crisis” (Kelly & McMullan 2011, p.1). Introducing BCM may involve changing
“the way we do things around here” (Deal & Kennedy 1982). Embedding and resourcing
BCM may be a challenge for management with many competing priorities in a busy
corporate or university environment. BCM must become part of the organisation’s core
values, thereby instilling confidence in stakeholders, such as customers, suppliers, staff and
funders, in the ability of the organisation and its management to cope with disruptions.

28
Insurance has also become a key driver. Insurers now insist that organisations demonstrate
that they have a working business continuity programme in place (Gallagher 2003).
The ISO standard(s) don’t specify exactly how to embed BCM into an organisation and, due
to its infancy as a business practice, there is a lack of literature which addresses embedding
BCM in organisations. Taking the embedding of BCM as an example of general
organisational cultural change, it is appropriate to refer to authors who specialise in that
research area such as Kotter (1995) and Cummings & Worley (2004). The step-by-step
processes, advocated by these authors (headings listed in Table 2.2 below), may prove useful
in embedding BCM in an organisation.
Cummings & Worley 2004 Kotter 1995 (see diagram Appendix E.)
1. Formulate a clear strategic vision
2. Display top-management commitment.
3. Model culture change at the highest level.
4. Modify the organisation to support
organisational change
5. Select and socialize newcomers (and
terminate deviants)
6. Develop ethical and legal sensitivity.
1. Establish a Sense of Urgency
2. Form a Powerful Guiding Coalition
3. Create a Vision (and Strategy)
4. Communicate the (Change) Vision
5. Empowering Others to Act on the
Vision
6. Planning for and Creating Short-Term
Wins
7. Consolidating Improvements and
Producing More Change
8. Anchoring (Institutionalising) New
Approaches in the Culture
Table 2.2 Steps to implementing Organisational Culture Change
Adapted (by author) from Cummings & Worley (2004, pp.490–492) and Kotter (1995, p.61)
The characteristics common to these authors’ work include vision, translation of that vision
into strategy and plan, communication of that vision, top management commitment, support
for organisational change, continuous improvements contribution to the change process – all

29
of which hark back to the characteristics noted in the case studies and the ISO22301 standard
and hence offer an apt approach to embedding BCM into an organisation’s culture.
Culture permeates all phases of the BCM lifecycle and is prioritised by BCM auditors when
assessing an organisation’s BCM system for certification purposes. According to von
Rossing (quoted in Hiles 2007, p.344) “Mature organizations show a strong culture that has
incorporated Business Continuity as a corporate value.” For Begg (2013, p.2), “the apogee of
effective BCM is achieving full embeddedness within an organisation’s culture”.
2.9 Summary and Conclusions
This chapter explored Business Continuity Management in the academic and professional
literature including reviewing a number of cases where BCM was required after university
emergencies. Themes emerged from the literature, relevant to the university sector, the key
theme being that whether they can be anticipated or not, emergencies and related
interruptions to business continuity should be prepared and planned for, including adequate
resourcing. Every organisation, including universities, should have a documented Business
Continuity Management system i.e. a Business Continuity Plan and associated documents,
continuously improved based on learnings from actual events and exercises and relevant
external developments, theoretical and practical.
The introduction and embedding of effective BCM into an organisation should have regard to
internationally regarded good practice as embodied in the twin standards (ISO22301/22313)
and life-cycle. Along with the GPG 2013, they comprise the most current uniform
benchmark in good practice.
Effective senior management leadership has been identified by ISO22301 as a key
requirement of an effective BCM process. It has also been suggested that appointing a BCM
champion (Sharp 2012) or identified coordinator (Friesen & Bell 2006), i.e. a specific named

30
sponsor from senior management, with appropriate authority, responsibility and
accountability, helps ensure successful embedding of BCM.
Ultimately BCM needs to be at the core of an organisation’s culture, including every
employee’s input and commitment to the process. Central to successful BCM is a
comprehensive communications strategy of all aspects of BCM to secure this commitment
and contribution to the process and interaction with external agencies, including funders and
suppliers.
The role (comfort) of insurance in a BCM programme has also been identified (Gallagher
2003, Sharp 2012).
These findings and themes will inform the research into the current BCM situation in UCC
which will be documented in the following chapters.

31
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This chapter describes and justifies the methodology used in addressing the Research Question:
The research explores the characteristics and practice of Business Continuity Management
(BCM) in universities:
1. To explore BCM generally with a view to gaining insight into its meaning and
application and identifying critical success factors in practice, specifically with regard
to its application in Irish universities (Chapter 2 Literature Review)
2. To investigate current BCM practice at UCC as an exemplar of Irish universities
(Chapters 3, 4 & 5 Research)
3. To make recommendations towards the continued development and rollout of a BCM
Framework which would be applicable in UCC and which would inform good BCM
practice across the Irish university sector (Chapter 6 Conclusion &
Recommendations).
Methodology is not just a collection of methods; rather it explains the rationale and
philosophical assumptions underlying a particular study and informs the methods used (Wisker
2008). The six layers of the Research Onion methodology model, developed by Saunders,
Lewis & Thornhill (2008), represent the six stages of the research process and provide the
framework for the chapter.

32
Figure 3.1 The Research Onion
Source: Saunders, Lewis. & Thornhill 2008
3.1 Research Philosophy (layer 1)
Philosophy is the study of the nature of existence, knowledge, reality, reason and values. The
researcher’s philosophical stance reflects important assumptions about how she views the world
and underpins her choice of research strategy and methods.
Philosophy is also determined by the nature of the research (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009).
Johnson & Clarke (2006, cited in Saunders & Thornhill 2009) stress that it is important for
researchers to defend their choice of philosophy vis-à-vis other philosophies. The philosophy
adopted depends on the research question but “rarely falls neatly into only one philosophical
domain” (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009, p.109).

33
3.1.1 Philosophical stance: Epistemology
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge and
justified beliefs, what knowledge is and how it is created (Quinlan 2011). There are three
choices within epistemology: positivism, realism and interpretivism.
3.1.1.1 Positivism
A positivist believes in the observed reality, i.e. a scientific approach involving facts rather
than impressions or perceptions (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009). A positivist usually
conducts quantitative research, involving the production of and study of numbers and
statistics (Quinlan 2011), leading to objective “law-like generalisations” as in the physical or
natural sciences (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009, p.129).
3.1.1.2 Realism
Realism is similar to positivism. For realists, observable phenomena, what we observe
through our senses and not our perceptions, dictate reality and truth (Saunders, Lewis &
Thornhill 2009).
3.1.1.3 Interpretivism
Interpretivism may be considered post-positivist. An interpretivist believes in multiple
realities, based on human interaction and individual subjective interpretation of language and
context. Interpretivists see reality as created by people through their interaction with it, i.e. as
“social actors” (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009, p.116). An interpretivist sees and
understands the differences between people in a given population and how their
understanding of language motivates their actions (Bryman & Bell 2007). The researcher
may become part of the research, for example, in an interview setting.
Insights into complex topics such as BCM may be lost with the positivism or realism
approaches; hence interpretivism is considered to be the appropriate epistemological stance

34
for this research. The researcher will adopt an empathetic stance during the in-depth, semi-
structured interviews and will be guided by the participants’ responses and reactions, i.e.
through social interaction she will try to understand their understanding, perceptions and
practice of BCM at UCC.
3.1.2 Philosophical stance: Ontology
Ontology is the branch of philosophy which studies the nature of reality (Saunders, Lewis &
Thornhill 2009), or, as Quinlan (2011, p.95) describes it, “… the study of being, the nature of
being and the ways of being in the world”.
Ontology may be objective where “…social entities exist in reality external to social actors”
or subjective where “… social phenomena are created from the perceptions and consequent
actions of social actors” (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009). Objectivity is usually related
to quantitative, and subjectivity to qualitative research.
This research follows a subjective ontology. The researcher considers that the interviewees’
perceptions and opinions, based on their experience of BCM in UCC to date, and articulated
in their responses, are crucial to interpreting their understanding of the research topic.
3.1.3 Philosophical stance: Axiology
Axiology or Value Theory, is the branch of philosophy concerned with values. The
researcher’s values are expressed in every aspect of the research. As she has adopted
interpretivist epistemology and subjective ontology philosophies and will be a participant in
the qualitative research through the interviews, the researcher will be value-bound and will
need to be careful with regard to the credibility, i.e. the reliability and validity, of the research
results (Saunders Lewis & Thornhill 2009).
Reliability means that the results obtained in the research can be repeated on other occasions
and by other investigators (Yin, 2009, Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009). Validity implies

35
that the findings are true. There must be a causal relationship between the data and the
findings (Yin 2009, Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009).
This researcher is aware that she may be considered a “practitioner-researcher” (Saunders,
Lewis & Thornhill 2009, pp.150-51) as an employee of the organisation being researched.
This can be an advantage in some respects such as providing access to senior colleagues and
inside knowledge of the organisation and BCM process at UCC. However, there may also be
the possibility of pre-conceived assumptions and personal or professional biases that may
affect the research output. This researcher has reflected on these possible threats to the
quality, reliability and validity of the results by being close to the research setting and will be
careful and conscientious about avoiding them (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008).
Axiology is especially relevant to the ethical aspect of qualitative research, specifying the
assumptions underlying the different research paradigms and providing a basis for
understanding the research process vis-à-vis its role in adding to previous knowledge in the
area under inquiry (Goles & Hirschheim 2000, Hiles 2008).
Ethics as applied to research design means that the participants (the research population)
should not be exposed to embarrassment, harm or any other material disadvantage (Saunders,
Lewis & Thornhill 2009). Bryman & Bell (2007) list the main areas of possible ethical
transgressions as: harm to participants, lack of informed consent, invasion of privacy,
deception, data protection, reciprocity and trust, affiliation and conflicts of interest.
These areas are all protected by completion by the researcher of the DCU Research Ethics
Form, based on the values of DCU, approval for the research and methodology used from
DCU and obtaining signed letters of consent from all interviewees.

36
3.1.4 Pragmatism
“Pragmatism argues that the most important determinate of the epistemology, ontology, and
axiology is the research question” (Bryman & Bell 2007, p.109). The correctness of meaning
and truth is only proven through use and application in real-life settings. Although
pragmatism is flexible and may be applied to any philosophical stance, “pragmatists tend not
to believe that truth is absolute and objective, but that it is co-created by us and the reality we
are working within” (Lee & Lings 2008, p.33).
The following table summarises the philosophical concepts discussed above; the researcher’s
choices are indicated in the Interpretivism column.

37
Table 3.1 Comparison of Research Philosophies in Management Research
Source: Saunders, Lewis. & Thornhill 2009, p.119

38
3.1.5 Research Paradigms
A Research Paradigm matrix, developed by social scientists Burrell & Morgan (1979, cited in
Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009) helps understand issues in management/business research.
Four paradigms are presented on two axes, the X-axis containing a spectrum from subjectivist to
objectivist and the Y-axis containing a spectrum from regulation to radical change.
Figure 3.2 Burrell & Morgan’s Four Paradigms for the analysis of social theory (1979)
Source: Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009, p.120
The interpretive and functionalist quadrants are both at the regulated end of the spectrum. The
interpretive quadrant represents the idea that the understanding of organisations is based on the
experience of those working within them, i.e. subjective (Bryman & Bell 2007, p.26).
Researchers in this paradigm try to observe on-going processes to better understand individual
behaviour within an organisation. The functionalist quadrant represents a problem-solving
orientation which leads to a rational (objective) explanation.
The radical humanist (subjective) and radical structuralist (objective) quadrants are both
desirous of change, the former suggesting that individuals need to be “emancipated from

39
organizations”, the latter suggesting that organisations are “a product of structural power
relationships”, resulting in conflict (Bryman & Bell 2007, p.26).
In this research, the researcher will be collating subjective views of senior members of a
regulated society, i.e. the university, thus following the interpretive research paradigm.
3.2 Research Approach (layer 2)
The research approach may be deductive or inductive.
Deduction involves the researcher developing a theory/hypothesis and then testing it. The
researcher must be independent of the research (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009). The
conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain (Copi, Cohen & Flage 2007).
Using an inductive approach the researcher collects and analyses the data and develops a
theory/hypothesis based on the data analysis (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009). An inductive
argument is about context, the truth of which is supposed to be probable, based on the evidence
(Copi, Cohen & Flage 2007). Induction is used if one is more interested in finding out why
something is happening, rather than describing what is happening. (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill
2009). The induction approach is used for this research as it fits in with the following suitability
criteria listed by Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill (2009):
 It allows the researcher to gain an understanding of the meanings humans attach to events
 It is suited to the collection of qualitative data
 Its flexible structure allows for a change of research emphasis as the research progresses
 The research is part of the process and
 There is less concern to generalise.
By interviewing a small sample of UCC managers about their perceptions and experience to date
with BCM and examining the current Emergency Management & Business Continuity Plan
(EM&BCP), the researcher will get “a feel of what is going on” (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill

40
2009, p.126) and hope to better understand BCM at UCC. The task is to understand the data
through analysis and formulate a theory based on that data.
3.3 Research Design and Strategy (layer 3)
3.3.1 Research Design
There are three types of research design; descriptive, explanatory and exploratory.
The purpose of a descriptive study is to form a clear picture of the person, event or situation
being researched (Robson 2002, p.59, cited in Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009).
Descriptive research is conducted in order to understand the characteristics of what is being
studied and may be linked to or complement exploratory research.
Explanatory studies aim to explain the causal relationship(s) between different variables
(Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009) and are normally linked to quantitative research.
Exploratory studies are carried out when a researcher has a new idea or theory and/or wishes to
discover new insights into a topic. Exploratory research provides “a valuable means of
finding out what is happening … to ask questions and to assess phenomena in a new light”
(Robson 2002, p.59, cited in Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009, p.139).
This research is an exploratory study, involving semi-structured interviews and relevant
document analysis, designed to investigate the current position and practice of BCM at UCC,
and provide insight into the key elements of effective BCM that might be applicable in the
Irish university sector generally.
3.3.2 Research Strategy
Each/any of the following seven strategies may be used for any of the three research designs
(Yin 2003, Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009) described in the preceding section:
Experiment, Survey, Case study, Action research, Grounded theory, Ethnography and
Archival research.

41
The research strategy chosen is determined by the research question, the objectives, and the
extent of existing knowledge, time, resources and philosophy (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill
2009). This research will follow a Case Study strategy to answer the research question and
meet the associated objectives. The rationale for and suitability of this choice is set out in the
next section.
3.3.2.1 Case Study
A case study research strategy is considered “a very worthwhile way of exploring existing
theory” (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009, p.145), involving “an empirical investigation of
a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of
evidence” (Robson 2002, cited in Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009, p.145). The
contemporary, real-life phenomenon of this study is the current (2016) practice of BCM in
the Irish university sector, represented by UCC. The researcher followed the steps
recommended by Yin in the diagram below, further detailed in Appendix F, some of which
overlap with the Research Onion.
Figure 3.3 Steps in Case Study Research
Source: Yin 2009, p.19

42
The ability to deal with a variety of evidence, from sources such as interviews, documents,
archival records, direct or participant observation and physical artifacts, is a unique feature of
Case Study research that is not offered by other research strategies. The sources of evidence
in this research will be semi-structured interviews (primary) and document analysis
(secondary)
Case studies contribute to understanding of individual, group and organisational phenomena
by asking questions such as Why? What? and How? (Yin 1994, 2003). They allow an
investigation to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events,
especially broad, complex organisational and/or business processes (Yin 2013). They do not
need to have propositions but should have a stated purpose or criteria on which its success
may be judged.
Case study research satisfies three aspects of qualitative research: description, understanding
and explaining. The case-study investigator does not control the data collection environment
as in other research strategies; hence data collection procedures within a case study are
considered to be very important. They are not routine, i.e. a simple matter of recording data
as in other types of research (Yin 1994). Yin (1994) highlights the importance of researcher
skills such as his/her investigative and interpretative ability, listening skills, an objective
disposition, adaptability and flexibility, a good understanding of the issues under
examination, sensitivity and responsiveness to contradictory responses and an ability to focus
the research on relevant events and information in manageable proportion. Some authors are
concerned with the quality of case study research, particularly validity and reliability,
mentioned under the Philosophy/Axiology section of this chapter. Validity implies that a
study’s findings may be applied generally outside the specific situation of the case study.
Critics of the case study strategy consider that a study of a single case or a small number of
cases is not reliable, that findings cannot be generalised and that, to ensure validity, it may

43
sometimes be necessary to undertake several case studies (Yin 1994, 2003). However Stake
(1994) says it is not necessary to generalise beyond the single case, in what he calls an
intrinsic case. A single case study such as in this research may be considered intrinsic, as it
serves a revelatory purpose (Stake 1994). This research aims to understand BCM in UCC as
a particular case within the Irish university sector. The results will, it is considered, be, in
large part, applicable across the sector because of the similarity of the seven Irish
universities; however, as recommended by Yin (1994), it may well be that other Irish
universities should consider conducting their own research to confirm its applicability. To
ensure validity, Yin (1994) recommends the use of multiple sources of evidence, thereby
constructing a chain of evidence, the use of thorough data collection methods and having key
informants review the draft case study report.
The goal of reliability is to minimise the errors and biases in a study, i.e. to ensure the
accuracy, stability and precision of the data collection so that they can be repeated with the
same results (Yin 2003). Case study researchers may be accused of a lack of rigour or
personal bias in the data collection. Consequently they need to be meticulously rigorous and
fair in the presentation of the data in order to counteract this criticism.
Case studies may be dismissed as only suitable to exploratory investigation, with no
demonstrable scientific use. Yin (1994) offers a defence that case studies do not necessarily
set out to represent a sample or to count frequencies. Case study research offers an
opportunity for the intensive analysis of many specific details that may be overlooked with
other methods (Theodorson & Theodorson 1969). Among the advantages of the case study
approach is the accessibility of information and that a case study permits the researcher to see
things, which otherwise might not have been seen (Gomm, Hammersley & Foster 2000).
The case study strategy is “particularly well suited to new research areas or research areas for
which existing theory seems inadequate” (Eisenhardt 1989, p.548-549). This suggests that it

44
is well-suited to the study of BCM in the Irish university sector, “given the dearth of research
into how organizations implement BCM” (Kelly & McMullan 2011, p.5) generally. It also
offers the opportunity to be selective, focussing on a small number of themes that emerge
from the literature review and investigating their existence in real-life.
Given the current state of the development and implementation of BCM in Irish universities
as well as the role senior managers will have in its development and implementation, the case
study strategy is considered to be a logical and well-founded methodology for this research.
3.4 Research Method (layer 4)
The choices of research methods for data collection and analysis may be best explained by
reference to the following diagram (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009).
Figure 3.4 Research Choices
Source: Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill. 2009, p.152
Research choices are first categorised as mono- (where only one data collection technique is
used to collect and analyse the data) or multiple methods (where more than one method is used).
Multiple methods are further divided into multi-method and mixed methods. Both mono-and
multi- may be used in both Qualitative and Quantitative studies. Mixed methods research may
be mixed-method (utilising qualitative and quantitative data separately) or mixed model
(utilising qualitative and quantitative data combined).

45
This research will use the Multiple methodsMulti-method qualitative technique, comprising
thematic analysis of qualitative data collected from semi-structured interviews with a number
of key UCC managers and one external consultant familiar with BCM in the Irish university
sector, and analysis of a pertinent document, namely the UCC EM&BC Plan 2016. The
inclusion of the external interviewee is considered important to get a view from outside the
organisation. If deemed necessary, additional data may be collected from other sources in
order to get more information about the case. For example, if a new line of thinking emerges
during the research, it may be appropriate to add an extra data collection method to provide
new theoretical insight (Eisenhardt 1989).
Triangulation is an essential technique used in case studies to strengthen results by
‘converging’ or corroborating two or more independent sources of evidence within one study
(Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009, Yin 2003, 2009). “The effectiveness of triangulation
rests on the premise that the weaknesses in each single method will be compensated by the
counter-balancing strengths of another” (Jick 1979, p.604).
3.5 Time Horizons (layer 5)
The time horizon for research may be cross-sectional (a snapshot in time) or longitudinal
(over an extended time period). The research question dictates the appropriate time horizon.
This research is cross-sectional, i.e. at a fixed point in time, January - July 2016, with the
interviews being held in May 2016 and the document analysis and write up of the findings
taking place in June-July 2016.
3.6 Data Collection and Data Analysis Techniques (layer 6)
Data for this research will be collected from both primary (interviews) and secondary sources
(document analysis). Triangulation will be used to corroborate findings from both primary
(interviews) and secondary sources (document analysis).

46
3.6.1 Primary data
An interview can be seen as a “conversation with a purpose” (Burgess 1984) or a
“professional conversation” (Kvale 1996) and may be of three types:
Structured: where all the questions are laid down in advance, like a spoken questionnaire;
Open/unstructured: where, although the focus may be specified, there are no pre-prepared
questions or themes, the structure may be loose and its direction relatively unpredictable;
or
Semi-structured, the most common form of interview, combining flexibility with control
through use of less formal questioning along thematic threads.
The researcher will conduct seven individual face-to-face interviews, each lasting 20-30
minutes, with a cross-section of six relevant senior UCC managers and an external consultant
to ascertain their views and understanding of BCM at UCC. The selection of interviewees
from across the university functions (Appendix G) will ensure reliability and validity in the
research as they comprise a representative sample of UCC senior management involved in
BCM activities.
The interviews will follow a semi-structured format, using a pre-prepared set of 10 topics
(Appendix H) derived from the Literature Review. Interviews have been chosen over surveys
because they allow participants to expand on ideas and provide more information to the
researcher. The “skilful interviewer can follow up ideas, probe responses and investigate
motives and feelings which a questionnaire can never do” (Bell 2009, p.157). By teasing out
and interpreting the interviewees’ responses, the researcher will gain insight into their
understanding of BCM. The interviewer will follow Bell’s checklist (2009) as guidance
through the interview process (Appendix I). The output from the interviews will be
transcribed and analysed along thematic lines as described in Chapter 5.

47
3.6.2 Secondary data
The researcher will conduct a desk review / document analysis of the UCC Emergency
Management & Business Continuity Plan (EM&BCP) 2016 following themes identified in
the Literature Review and in the primary research. Reliability and validity of the secondary
data is assured as the EM&BCP is a formal UCC document, approved by the Governing
Body (Ó Dochartaigh 2002).
The various inputs will contribute to recommendations for an appropriate BC Framework in
UCC and provide a basis for the development and implementation of BCM in the Irish
university sector generally.
3.7 Summary
The following figure and table summarise the researcher’s interpretation of the Research
Onion methodology and its underlying philosophy and its application to this research with the
researcher’s choices highlighted.
Figure 3.5 The Research Onion – choices circled
Source: Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill. 2008

48
1 PHILOSOPHICAL STANCES
Epistemology: study of knowledge and justified belief
Positivism Realism  Interpretivism Pragmatism
Ontology: theory of reality
Objective  Subjective
Axiology: values
Functionalist  Interpretivism
Radical
Humanist
Radical
Structuralist
2  APPROACHES
 Inductive Deductive
3 DESIGN
 Exploratory Descriptive Explanative
4 STRATEGIES
Experiment Survey
 Case
Study
Action
Research
Grounded
Theory
Ethnography Archival
Research
5 METHODOLOGICAL CHOICES
Mono method  Multi method: Mixed method:
quantitative qualitative  qualitative qualitative simple
6 TIME HORIZONS
 Cross-sectional Longitudinal
Table 3.2 Summary of Philosophy and Methodology Underpinning this Research
Developed by Author

49
CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDY
4.0 Introduction to UCC
This chapter provides background on University College Cork (UCC) which is the focus of
the research. UCC was chosen because the researcher holds the post of Risk Manager in
Office of Corporate and Legal Affairs (OCLA), UCC, the office responsible for corporate
functions of the university including Risk Management, Emergency Management and
Business Continuity Planning (www.ucc.ie/en/ocla/ accessed 3/7/2016).
Founded in 1845, UCC is one of Ireland’s seven publicly-funded universities operating under
the provisions of the Universities Act 1997 as outlined in Chapter 1 of this dissertation. It has
over 20,000 students (14,000 undergraduate, 4,000 postgraduate and 2,200 part-time,
including 3,000 international students from 100+ countries), 2,800 staff (academic, research
and professional/administrative) and 130,000 alumni (UCC SP 2013, p.8).
UCC is governed by its Governing Body (GB) and Academic Council and managed by its
University Management Teams for Strategy (UMTS) and Operations (UMTO), of whom
approximately half are drawn from academic leadership, including the President, Registrar,
Vice-Presidents and Heads of Colleges, and half from professional services, including
Bursar/Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Secretary and Directors of Buildings & Estates, IT
Services and Human Resources. UCC has five operational units, four Colleges (comprised of
schools, departments and research centres), and a fifth unit comprising central professional
services (e.g. Buildings & Estates, Corporate & Legal Affairs, Finance, HR, ITS, Library,
Registry). UCC’s organisational and senior management structure is shown in Appendix G.
UCC’s vision, mission, goals and objectives are published in the Strategic Plan 2013
“Sustaining Excellence”.
UCC’s vision, i.e. its stated ambition and aspiration (Johnson, Scholes & Whittington 2008),
is “To be a world-class university connecting our region to the globe” (UCC SP 2013, p.13).

Mairead Loughman Dissertation FINAL 240716

Mairead Loughman Dissertation FINAL 240716

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Mairead Loughman Dissertation FINAL 240716

Similar to Mairead Loughman Dissertation FINAL 240716 (20)

Mairead Loughman Dissertation FINAL 240716