The Words into Action SIMEX Guidelines are a structured methodological guide published by the UNDRR that provides emergency managers, government officials, and disaster preparedness professionals with practical, step-by-step guidance for planning, designing, implementing, and evaluating simulation exercises to test and strengthen disaster preparedness and response systems.
Map
Words into Action: Guidelines for Design and Conduct of Simulation Exercises (SIMEX)
General Information
ISIG
Provides emergency managers and disaster preparedness professionals with practical, step-by-step guidance for designing and conducting simulation exercises that test and strengthen response plans, procedures, and coordination systems across all hazards.
Published in 2020 as part of UNDRR's Words into Action Guideline series on implementing Sendai Framework Priority 4 (enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response), the guide is structured across three main sections: General Information on Simulation Exercises (SIMEX), covering definitions, types, and purposes; The Process, detailing planning, design, implementation, and debriefing phases; and Existing Guidelines, providing a curated directory of complementary SIMEX guidance from WHO, national civil protection agencies, and other authoritative sources.
The guide covers the full spectrum of simulation exercise types — from low-cost, discussion-based table-top exercises (TTX) that require no pre-existing plan, to resource-intensive full-scale field exercises that simulate real events under operational conditions. It is designed to be globally applicable and scalable to different organizational capacities, hazard contexts, and resource environments, making simulation exercises accessible to national governments, subnational authorities, humanitarian organisations, and community-based actors alike.
Simulation exercises (SIMEX) are a cornerstone non-structural preparedness measure, recognised globally as essential for validating emergency plans, testing coordination systems, clarifying roles and responsibilities, identifying resource and capability gaps, and building operational readiness before crises occur. However, many national and local authorities, emergency management organisations, and community-based actors lack access to structured, accessible guidance on how to design, conduct, and learn from simulation exercises effectively — particularly in resource-constrained settings or where technical simulation expertise is limited.
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, Priority 4, explicitly calls for enhanced disaster preparedness for effective response, including through regular preparedness exercises. The global evidence base confirms that organisations and systems that conduct regular, well-designed simulation exercises demonstrate measurably stronger response performance, faster decision-making, better inter-agency coordination, and reduced operational errors during actual emergencies. Yet widespread implementation gaps persist: many organisations either do not conduct simulation exercises at all, or conduct them without clear objectives, structured evaluation, or follow-up actions — limiting their preparedness value.
The UNDRR Words into Action SIMEX Guidelines were developed to address these gaps by providing a globally accessible, non-prescriptive methodological resource that enables emergency managers and preparedness professionals to design and conduct effective simulation exercises regardless of their prior experience, technical capacity, or resource environment. The guide sits within the broader Words into Action series, which translates Sendai Framework commitments into practical, implementable actions for national and local disaster risk reduction practitioners.
Hazard Type
Geographical Scope - Nuts
Geographical Scope
Population Size
Population Density
Needs Addressed
Emergency management organisations and disaster preparedness professionals face several recurring challenges in strengthening operational readiness: untested emergency plans that may contain critical gaps, unclear coordination arrangements, or unrealistic assumptions; weak inter-agency and inter-sectoral coordination due to lack of familiarity with each other's roles, capabilities, and procedures; insufficient staff and volunteer capacity to operate under the stress, time pressure, and information uncertainty of real emergencies; and lack of structured evaluation mechanisms to identify and address preparedness weaknesses before they are exposed during actual crises.
Many organisations recognise the value of simulation exercises in principle but lack practical guidance on how to design and conduct them effectively, particularly when resources, technical expertise, or simulation infrastructure are limited. The specific gap the UNDRR SIMEX Guidelines address is the absence of a globally accessible, step-by-step methodological framework that enables organisations at any capacity level: from community-based organisations to national emergency management agencies - to plan, conduct, and learn from simulation exercises appropriate to their context, hazard profile, and preparedness objectives.
While the guide is a methodological resource for practitioners rather than a direct-delivery programme, it requires that exercise design actively accommodate and include vulnerable groups as both participants and as considerations in scenario design, ensuring that preparedness systems are tested for their ability to serve marginalised populations effectively during actual emergencies.
As a globally applicable methodological resource, the SIMEX Guidelines can be implemented across all governance types. Simulation exercises can be: nationally designed and coordinated by central emergency management authorities; regionally or municipally initiated and managed by subnational authorities; jointly planned and delivered by government, NGOs, Red Cross/Red Crescent, private sector, and communities; or designed and conducted by community-based organisations and volunteer networks. The guide explicitly acknowledges the diversity of governance contexts and provides adaptable guidance for each.
The guide is explicitly designed to be applicable across all preparedness levels. Table-top exercises can be conducted by organisations with only basic preparedness awareness and no formalised emergency plan. Drills and functional exercises require organised response capacity with existing plans and procedures in place. Full-scale field exercises are appropriate for advanced preparedness systems with established coordination mechanisms, trained personnel, and operational infrastructure. The guide's modular structure allows users to select exercise types matched to their current capacity.
SIMEX can be conducted at any infrastructure level. Table-top exercises require only a meeting space and facilitation capacity (functioning even with no physical infrastructure). Drills and functional exercises require basic coordination capacity and communications. Full-scale exercises require developed infrastructure (operational centres, communications systems, response equipment). The guide explicitly designs for scalability across infrastructure contexts.
Engagement in SIMEX is used to build shared situational awareness, test and strengthen inter-organisational coordination, clarify roles and responsibilities through practice, and co-identify system weaknesses and improvement priorities. Well-designed SIMEX creates shared ownership of preparedness challenges and solutions among all participating actors.
Facilitated structured discussion (TTX); hands-on operational practice (drills); time-pressured, realistic decision-making and coordination under simulation (functional and full-scale exercises); post-exercise structured debriefing and lessons capture involving all participants; and collaborative action planning to address identified gaps.
SIMEX participants are empowered as co-evaluators of preparedness systems: their actions, decisions, and feedback during and after exercises directly identify system strengths and weaknesses. The debriefing and evaluation process is explicitly participatory, with participants contributing to lessons learned and improvement action planning. In community-based exercises, community members influence and co-design exercise scenarios to reflect local realities and priorities.
The solution builds long-term operational capacity by: transferring knowledge of emergency procedures and coordination mechanisms through experiential practice; strengthening individual and institutional confidence to act under pressure; creating inter-personal and inter-organisational relationships that enable faster, more effective coordination during real emergencies; and institutionalising a culture of continuous preparedness improvement through regular exercise cycles.
Vulnerable Groups
Governance
Emergency Preparedness
Infrastructure Readiness
Engagement Level
Empowerment Level
Implementation
Defining methodological innovation: typological framework that categorises simulation exercises along two axes — discussion-based vs. operations-based, and complexity/resource intensity — creating a clear, accessible menu of exercise types from which organisations can select based on their objectives and capacity. This includes:
-Table-Top Exercises (TTX): Facilitated discussion-based simulations in low-stress environments. This is the only type of simulation that does not require an existing response plan in place, making it uniquely accessible to organisations with limited preparedness maturity and serving as an entry point for organisations new to SIMEX.
-Drills: Focused, repetitive training of single specific functions (e.g., evacuation procedure, communication protocol).
-Functional Exercises (FX): Fully simulated, time-pressured, multi-function tests of coordination and decision-making under realistic conditions.
-Full-Scale/Field Exercises: Operational simulations mobilising personnel, equipment, and infrastructure to test real-world response capability.
- A structured process framework covering planning (defining objectives, scope, participants), design (scenario development, inject scripting, evaluation criteria), implementation (facilitation, control, simulation management), and debriefing (structured evaluation, lessons capture, improvement action planning). This makes a complex, expert-led practice accessible to non-specialist users.
- A curated directory of existing SIMEX guidance from WHO, national agencies (New Zealand, Sweden, etc.), and humanitarian organisations, positioning itself as a gateway resource that connects users to deeper technical guidance relevant to specific sectors or hazard contexts.
- Accessibility and inclusion as a design principle throughout the SIMEX process. Exercise planners are explicitly guided to ensure programmatic access, physical access, and effective communication for people with disabilities and others with access and functional needs; to include diverse participants in terms of gender, age, disability, and vulnerable groups; and to design scenarios that test the effectiveness of response systems in serving marginalised populations.
English (primary published version). UNDRR guidance is often translated into UN official languages (French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Chinese) and additional languages by national authorities and partner organisations.
The guide was developed and published by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), based in Geneva, Switzerland, as part of the Words into Action guideline series supporting Sendai Framework implementation.
Transferable types of implementing organisations (those who use the guide to conduct SIMEX) include: national emergency management agencies and civil protection departments; regional and municipal disaster risk management authorities; Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies; international and national humanitarian NGOs; health ministries and public health emergency programmes; critical infrastructure operators (utilities, transport); and community-based disaster preparedness organisations.
UNDRR is the UN focal point for disaster risk reduction, holding the mandate to support implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. It has global authority and expertise in disaster risk governance, preparedness systems, early warning, and resilience policy. The Words into Action series represents accumulated global practice from DRR practitioners, national authorities, and expert networks.
Primary users: Emergency managers, national and subnational government officials responsible for disaster preparedness, civil protection agencies, Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies, humanitarian organisations, and municipal emergency planning authorities.
Participants in SIMEX (as described in the guide): Emergency services (fire, police, medical), government departments, voluntary organisations, community representatives, private sector actors (utilities, transport, communications), and in some cases affected populations (for community-based exercises).
Supporting actors: UNDRR (as publisher and promoter), WHO (complementary health emergency SIMEX guidance), national disaster management authorities, and training institutions that integrate the guide into emergency management curricula.
The guide structures SIMEX implementation across four phases:
1. Planning Phase
- Define exercise objectives (what you want to test/improve)
- Determine exercise type and scope (TTX, drill, functional, or full-scale)
- Identify participants and stakeholders
- Establish planning team and assign roles (exercise director, controllers, evaluators)
- Develop exercise timeline and resource plan
- Conduct stakeholder analysis ensuring inclusion of people with disabilities and others with access and functional needs
- Write concept note and send invitations
2. Design Phase
- Develop exercise scenario (hazard event, impacts, timeline)
- Create injects (information inputs that drive participant decision-making and actions)
- Design evaluation criteria and data collection methods
- Prepare participant briefing materials and safety protocols
- Arrange logistics ensuring accessibility for all participants (location, communication equipment, alternative formats)
- Conduct pre-exercise orientation and training for controllers/evaluators
3. Implementation Phase
- Setup and administration: check equipment functionality, prepare materials, secure location
- Brief participants on exercise rules, safety, and expectations
- Execute simulation according to design (inject delivery, facilitation, time management)
- Monitor and document participant actions, decisions, and coordination
- Collect evaluation data through observation, interviews, and debriefs
- Maintain exercise control and safety throughout
4. Debriefing and Evaluation Phase
- Conduct hot debrief immediately post-exercise (initial participant feedback)
- Analyse evaluation data against objectives
- Identify strengths, gaps, and improvement priorities
- Develop action plan for addressing identified weaknesses
- Document lessons learned and share findings with stakeholders
- Update emergency plans and procedures based on SIMEX results
- Schedule follow-up exercises to validate improvements
Table-Top Exercises: Minimal resources required — meeting space, facilitation capacity, scenario documentation. Can be conducted with zero external funding.
Drills: Limited resources — specific training materials, supervision, may require equipment for the function being drilled.
Functional Exercises: Moderate resources — coordination capacity, communications systems, evaluation team, exercise controllers.
Full-Scale Field Exercises: Significant resources — personnel mobilisation, equipment deployment, operational infrastructure, safety management, evaluation and documentation capacity.
The guide explicitly designs for resource scalability, enabling organisations to start with low-cost TTX and progress to more resource-intensive exercise types as capacity and funding grow.
The guide provides clear timeframe guidance for each exercise type:
- Table-Top Exercise: Preparation time approximately 1 month; execution 2–4 hours.
- Drill: Preparation time approximately 1 month; execution 1 hour to full day.
- Functional Exercise: Preparation time 2–3 months; execution half-day to full day.
- Full-Scale Exercise: Preparation time 3–6 months or more; execution full day to multi-day.
Implementation is iterative: organisations are encouraged to conduct SIMEX regularly (annually or biennially) as part of ongoing preparedness maintenance, progressively increasing complexity as capacity strengthens.
Experience of the Implementing Organisation in DRM
Target Audience
Resources Required
Timeframe & Phases
Participation Results
- Simulation exercises are most effective when they test real plans under realistic conditions with genuine time pressure and information uncertainty — scripted, performative exercises have limited preparedness value.
- Low-cost table-top exercises are highly effective for testing coordination and decision-making and should be the starting point for organisations new to SIMEX practice, especially since they are the only exercise type that does not require an existing emergency plan.
- Regular exercise cycles (annual or biennial) are more valuable than one-off large-scale exercises, as they embed continuous preparedness improvement as an organisational norm.
- Multi-agency and multi-sectoral exercises that test coordination across organisational boundaries generate the highest-value lessons, as most real emergency failures occur at coordination interfaces rather than within single organisations.
Sustaining commitment and resources for regular exercise cycles is a recurring challenge, particularly in resource-constrained settings. The guide addresses this by emphasising low-cost TTX as sustainable entry points and by framing SIMEX as a mandated Sendai Framework commitment, strengthening the case for institutional budget allocation.
Ensuring exercises are realistic and stress-testing rather than performative or overly scripted requires skilled facilitation and robust evaluation design. The guide addresses this through explicit guidance on inject design, realistic time pressure, and independent evaluation processes.
Balancing learning objectives with operational safety during field exercises is a critical challenge, particularly when deploying personnel and equipment. The guide includes specific guidance on exercise safety protocols and risk management.
Translating exercise findings into sustained preparedness improvements depends on strong follow-up action planning and institutional accountability. The guide embeds action planning as a mandatory final phase of the SIMEX cycle.
Poorly designed exercises that reinforce incorrect procedures or create false confidence: Mitigation through structured design methodology, clear evaluation criteria, and independent evaluators who can identify weaknesses objectively.
Participant fatigue or disengagement during long exercises: Mitigation through pacing, realism, and clear roles. The guide recommends matching exercise duration to participant capacity.
Physical safety risks during field exercises: Mitigation through mandatory safety briefings, safety officers, clear stop/pause protocols, and realistic but controlled operational environments.
Unequal participation or exclusion of marginalised voices: Mitigation by designing inclusive participant selection, accessible formats (programmatic access, physical access, effective communication), and community-based exercise variants.
Exercise findings not acted upon: Mitigation through structured action planning, institutional accountability mechanisms, and linking SIMEX results to emergency plan updates and budget processes.
Risk & Mitigation Plan
Scalability and Sustainability
The guide operates on a freely accessible public good model: it is published by UNDRR and made available without cost via UNDRR, PreventionWeb, and partner platforms. There is no subscription, licensing, or paywall. Sustainability is structural: the guide is a permanent resource within UNDRR's Sendai Framework implementation support portfolio, maintained and promoted as part of UNDRR's core mandate.
At the implementation level, sustainability depends on institutionalising SIMEX as a recurring organisational practice embedded in emergency management routines and budgets rather than as one-off funded projects. The guide's emphasis on low-cost exercise types and on linking SIMEX to mandated planning cycles (e.g., emergency plan review, Sendai Framework national reporting) supports this institutionalisation.
The guide's modular, typological design is its primary scalability mechanism. Organisations can start with minimal-cost TTX, scale up to drills and functional exercises as capacity grows, and eventually conduct full-scale field exercises when resources and institutional maturity allow. The same core methodology applies regardless of: hazard type (natural, technological, health, complex emergencies); geographic scale (community, municipal, regional, national, international); sectoral focus (health, civil protection, humanitarian, infrastructure); or organisational capacity (community-based organisation to national government).
The guide is globally transferable because it provides methodology, not prescriptive content: users adapt scenarios, objectives, and formats to their own hazard profiles, governance contexts, and preparedness priorities. Case examples and complementary guidance from diverse countries (New Zealand, Sweden, Pacific islands, etc.) demonstrate global applicability.
Technology plays a functional but non-central role. Some exercises use digital communications systems, simulation software, or virtual platforms (particularly for functional exercises testing coordination centres and information management). However, the guide's core methodology is technology-agnostic: table-top exercises require only paper-based scenarios and facilitated discussion.
The innovation is methodological rather than technological, making expert SIMEX practice accessible to non-specialist users through structured frameworks and typologies.
Development costs (for the guide itself): No public budget figure was found in sources reviewed. Development was undertaken by UNDRR as part of its regular programme budget supporting Sendai Framework implementation.
Implementation costs (for conducting SIMEX using the guide): Highly variable depending on exercise type:
- Table-Top Exercise: Near-zero cost (meeting space, printed scenarios, facilitator time).
- Drill: Low cost (training materials, supervision, may require consumables or equipment).
- Functional Exercise: Moderate cost (staff time, coordination infrastructure, evaluation team, documentation).
- Full-Scale Field Exercise: High cost (personnel deployment, equipment mobilisation, operational infrastructure, safety management, external facilitators/evaluators if needed).
The guide explicitly designs for financial scalability, enabling organisations to start with zero-budget TTX and progress to resource-intensive exercises only as funding becomes available.
Ongoing costs are primarily staff time for planning, facilitation, evaluation, and follow-up action implementation. Organisations that institutionalise regular SIMEX cycles absorb these costs within core emergency management budgets rather than treating them as discretionary project expenses. The guide's emphasis on internal capacity-building (training staff to facilitate and evaluate exercises) reduces dependency on costly external consultants.
- Low-cost, discussion-based table-top exercises are the single most sustainable SIMEX format: they require minimal resources, can be conducted frequently, and generate high-value preparedness insights when well-facilitated.
- Embedding SIMEX as a mandated requirement within national DRR strategies, emergency management legislation, or Sendai Framework national reporting processes creates institutional accountability that sustains practice over time.
- Training internal staff to design, facilitate, and evaluate exercises eliminates dependency on external expertise and creates long-term organisational capacity.