In continuity planning, manual workarounds are short-term alternate processing methods used when the normal system-based way of doing a task is unavailable. That is the practical answer.
In short
A manual workaround is only useful if it is documented, realistic, tested, and maintained before the outage starts.
- Document the trigger, steps, materials, people, limits, and handoff back to normal processing
- Test the workaround at realistic scale, not just in theory
- Update the procedure when systems, staffing, approvals, or site conditions change
NIST’s contingency planning guidance says some affected business processes may be performed using alternate processing, including manual means, typically for only short-term disruptions. Ready Business adds a useful operational point: organizations should document the forms and resource requirements needed for manual workarounds. See NIST contingency planning guidance and Ready Business continuity planning guidance.
For practitioners, the problem is rarely the idea of a workaround. Most teams already believe they can “do it manually” for a while. The real problem is the gap between saying that and proving it. That gap shows up in customer-facing work, finance and payment tasks, IT-dependent processes, site activities, and back-office work. If the workaround depends on tribal knowledge, one experienced employee, or a form nobody can find during the outage, it is not ready.
What a Manual Workaround Is Supposed to Do
A manual workaround is not the same thing as recovery. It is a temporary bridge that helps the organization keep a critical output going until normal processing is restored.
That distinction matters because teams often describe workarounds too loosely. They say they can use paper, spreadsheets, phone calls, or a shared mailbox, but they have not documented what that means step by step. NIST SP 800-34 Rev. 1 is a useful reference here. Its contingency plan template says the plan should identify alternate manual or technical processing procedures that allow the mission or business process to continue.
A good workaround procedure should answer a few basic questions:
- What output still has to happen?
- What triggers the switch to manual processing?
- What temporary method will the team use?
- What people, forms, tools, and approvals does it depend on?
- How long can it realistically hold before quality, compliance, or backlog risk becomes a bigger problem?
- How will the team return to normal processing afterward?
Those are recommended practice questions, not quoted requirements. But they are the difference between a workaround that sounds plausible and one that is actually usable.
What to Document Before the Disruption
If a workaround is worth relying on, it should be documented clearly enough that someone else can use it.
Ready Business is explicit that manual workarounds should have their forms and resource requirements documented. That is a good baseline because it forces teams to move past vague statements and into actual operating detail. See Ready Business continuity planning guidance.
In practice, a strong workaround procedure usually includes:
Trigger
What outage, disruption, or degraded condition tells the team to activate the workaround?
Scope
What part of the process does the workaround cover, and what does it not cover?
Steps
What should the person do, in order?
Inputs and materials
What forms, files, contact lists, local references, printed instructions, or physical tools are required?
People and approvals
Who performs the workaround, who approves exceptions, and who backs up the primary person?
Limits
How much volume can the workaround handle, and for how long?
Return to normal operations
How will the team reconcile delayed work, re-enter data, or prevent duplicates once systems return?
This is where a subtle platform mention fits naturally. If the problem is keeping workaround procedures current and accessible, BCM Planner is relevant because BCMMetrics says it lets teams create, edit, store, and share plans in one place. BCM One is relevant where site-based document access matters, since BCMMetrics describes it as a location-based document repository for critical site information. Those tools do not replace the planning work, but they can support maintenance and access once the workaround logic is documented properly.
Practical note
A workaround that depends on one experienced employee, an outdated form, or an unavailable local file is not ready. The procedure needs to be usable by someone else under pressure.
How to Test and Maintain Manual Workarounds
A documented workaround is still just an assumption until it is tested.
NIST SP 800-84 says exercises and tests identify deficiencies in plans, procedures, and training. NIST SP 800-34 also says contingency plans should be updated from lessons learned, and it includes examples where after-action reporting and lessons learned drive plan updates and redistribution of the revised plan. Those documents are written for federal information systems, so they are best used here as practical guidance, not as private-sector doctrine. But the lesson is still useful: if the workaround is never exercised, you do not really know whether it works.
A practical maintenance routine should include:
Walkthroughs
Can the assigned person explain the procedure clearly?
Execution tests
Can the team actually perform the task manually for a realistic period?
Volume tests
Can it handle the workload it is supposed to cover?
Dependency checks
Are the forms, contacts, references, approvals, printers, and local materials still available?
Recovery handoff checks
Can the team reconcile the manually processed work once systems return?
This is where many organizations find the real weakness. The workaround may be possible, but only at a much lower volume, with more staff, or with more control risk than people assumed. That does not always mean the workaround is bad. It may mean the organization needs to reset expectations about what that workaround can really support.
Ask before you sign off
Could this workaround still function if the outage lasted longer, volumes increased, or the primary person was unavailable?
Where Manual Workarounds Usually Fail
The most common failure is treating tribal knowledge like documented capability.
One employee knows the process. Everyone else assumes that is enough. Then the disruption happens outside that person’s shift, or they are unavailable, or the step they “always do” depends on a system, form, or contact that no longer exists.
A second failure is underestimating effort.
Manual workarounds usually take more people, more time, and more supervision than teams expect. That matters most in high-volume work or anything with approval, control, or reconciliation requirements.
A third failure is forgetting the return path.
The workaround keeps work moving during the outage, but the team has no clean method for re-entering, validating, or reconciling that work later.
A fourth failure is poor maintenance.
The process changed, the application changed, the site contact changed, or the form changed, but the workaround procedure did not.
None of those are exotic problems. They are the ordinary reasons a workaround that sounds fine during planning stops being credible when it has to run at speed.
When a Workaround Gap Points to a Bigger Recovery Problem
Sometimes the workaround is weak because the documentation is weak.
Sometimes it is weak because the recovery design is weak.
That is an important distinction. If the workaround can only support a tiny fraction of the needed volume, depends on unavailable data, or creates control issues the organization cannot tolerate, the answer may not be to write a better procedure. It may be to revisit the recovery strategy, staffing model, system dependency, or tolerance assumptions behind the process.
That is usually the point where outside help becomes useful. MHA can help teams decide whether they need a tighter manual procedure, a stronger recovery procedure, or a bigger redesign of the recovery approach.
Conclusion
A manual workaround is not ready because someone says it exists.
It is ready when the steps are documented, the materials are known, the people are identified, the limits are understood, and the process has been tested enough to show where it breaks.
That is what turns a workaround from tribal knowledge into a usable recovery bridge.
FAQ
What are manual workarounds in business continuity?
Manual workarounds are alternate processing methods used when the normal system-based way of doing a process is unavailable, usually for a short-term disruption.
How do you document a manual workaround?
Document the trigger, scope, steps, required forms and materials, responsible people, time limits, and the handoff back to normal processing. Ready Business specifically says to document the forms and resource requirements needed for manual workarounds.
How often should workaround procedures be tested?
They should be exercised on a scheduled basis and updated from lessons learned, especially after tests, exercises, and real disruptions. NIST guidance supports that pattern as practical contingency-planning discipline.
When does a manual workaround become a recovery design issue?
It becomes a bigger recovery design issue when the workaround cannot support realistic volumes, depends on unavailable data or people, or creates control or compliance issues the organization cannot tolerate for the required duration.
