A disaster recovery plan that's never been tested is a document, not a plan. The difference only becomes obvious once it's actually needed.
Most businesses have some version of a disaster recovery plan sitting in a folder somewhere. Far fewer have ever actually run it. That gap between having a plan and having tested one is one of the most common and most avoidable risks in business continuity.
Disaster recovery testing means simulating a real failure, a server outage, a ransomware event, a facility becoming inaccessible, and confirming the business could actually recover, rather than assuming the written plan would work if it were ever needed.
Why This Gets Skipped So Often
Testing takes time, can feel disruptive to schedule, and doesn’t produce an obvious return the way most other IT spending does. A plan that’s never tested doesn’t look any different from one that has been, right up until the moment it’s actually needed. That’s exactly what makes it easy to defer indefinitely, and exactly why it shouldn’t be.
The Three Levels of Testing
- Tabletop exercise: The response team walks through a simulated scenario verbally, discussing who does what and in what order, without touching any actual systems. This is the fastest and least disruptive way to catch gaps in the plan itself, like unclear ownership or missing contact information.
- Component test: A specific piece of the plan gets tested directly, restoring one server from backup, or failing over a single system to a secondary environment, to confirm that particular piece actually works as documented.
- Full simulation: The most comprehensive test, and the most disruptive to schedule. This rebuilds critical systems in a recovery environment and confirms the business could genuinely operate from what got recovered, not just that the technical pieces came back online.
What Good Testing Actually Reveals
The value of a real test isn’t confirming the plan works. It’s usually finding the specific ways it doesn’t, before that failure happens during an actual incident. Common findings include recovery time estimates that turn out to be optimistic once tested for real, dependencies between systems that weren’t documented anywhere, and contact information or access credentials that are out of date by the time they’re actually needed.
A Reasonable Testing Schedule
Tabletop exercises are worth running at least twice a year, since they’re low-cost and catch a surprising number of planning gaps. Component tests fit well on a quarterly cadence for critical systems. A full simulation is more resource-intensive and typically makes sense annually, or after any significant change to the environment, a new critical system, a location change, a major infrastructure shift, that would meaningfully affect how recovery would actually work.
What This Looks Like at ACT360
Jeffrey Bowles, Partner and Director of IT Services at ACT360, explains the reasoning behind scheduling this proactively rather than waiting for a reason to test:
“I’d rather we catch this now, in a review, than have it show up as an incident in six months.”
— Jeffrey Bowles, Partner & Director of IT Services, ACT360
Disaster recovery testing at ACT360 is scheduled and documented as a standard part of the relationship, not something clients need to remember to ask for. Tabletop exercises, component tests, and full simulations are cadenced according to what a specific business can actually tolerate in downtime, since a manufacturing client with a production line and a professional services firm have very different real-world stakes even if their technical environments look similar on paper.
Final Thought
A disaster recovery plan earns its name the first time it’s actually tested. Before that, it’s a reasonable draft of what might work. The gap between the two isn’t visible on paper, which is exactly why it has to be checked deliberately rather than assumed.
T: 705-739-2281 E: [email protected]
