As production environments become more connected and automated, even brief interruptions can quickly disrupt supply chains, customer commitments, and revenue. Today’s disaster recovery systems bring together backup, security, and response capabilities, helping manufacturers detect issues early, limit damage, and restore operations faster, reshaping how success is measured when uptime and continuity are critical.
To find out what 94,886 opinions of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery were, we utilized AI-driven audience profiling to synthesize insights from online discussions for a full year ending January 13, 2026, to a high statistical confidence level. The insights reflect real-world experience at scale, revealing how disaster recovery is being shaped by operational pressure, evolving risk, and the need to keep work moving when disruption occurs.
Which Manufacturing Industry Best Describes Your Organization?
58% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery operate in the automotive sector
The strongest disaster recovery uptake sits in two process-heavy manufacturing industries:
The industry that best describes the organizations in our audience that have used disaster recovery reflects where disruption carries the highest cost. Automotive manufacturing leads at 58%, pointing to environments where production lines, automation, and supply chains depend on constant availability. Chemical manufacturing follows at 42%, where tightly controlled processes and safety requirements leave little room for extended downtime.
This focus lines up with real exposure across the sector. In the United States, the manufacturing and utilities industry recorded 259 cases of data compromise in a single year, reinforcing why recovery planning has become part of day-to-day operations. For manufacturers operating at scale, disaster recovery supports continuity when incidents affect systems, data, or production flow.
What Type Of Disruption Risk Is Most Concerning For Your Manufacturing Operations?
Supply chain disruptions are somewhat concerning for 100% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery
Manufacturers are fully aligned on one threat:
Manufacturers that have used disaster recovery in our audience are unanimous on the type of disruption risk that is most concerning for their operations. It’s all about supply chain disruption. This reflects how closely production now depends on digital connections across vendors, platforms, and service providers.
Recent analysis of major data breaches points to growing vulnerabilities inside the digital supply chain, often linked to third parties, cloud services, and shared data environments. When one link is affected, the impact travels quickly through operations, delivery schedules, and production flow. For manufacturers, this makes supply chain disruption the most immediate and visible risk, and reinforces why disaster recovery planning focuses on keeping interconnected operations running when systems or partners are affected.
What Type Of Manufacturing Data Do You Consider Most Critical To Protect?
100% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery consider supplier and inventory data quite important to protect
There is a clear consensus around one information priority:
Manufacturers that have used disaster recovery all agree that protecting supplier and inventory data is quite important. This makes sense in environments where purchasing, scheduling, and fulfillment depend on accurate, real-time information shared across multiple systems and partners.
Research into supply chain analytics shows that forecasting, planning, and overall performance rely on trusted inventory and supplier data that remains available and intact. When that data is compromised or unavailable, decisions slow down quickly, and disruption follows. For manufacturers, protecting supplier and inventory data supports continuity, keeps operations aligned, and ensures recovery efforts focus on restoring the information that drives day-to-day execution.
How Confident Are You In Your Current Recovery Plan Handling A Major Disruption?
39% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery say they are confident, with some concerns about their current recovery plan handling a major disruption
Perspectives span a wide spectrum from optimism to hesitation:
Given that ransomware costs the manufacturing sector an estimated $17 billion in downtime between 2018 and 2024, it’s easy to see why confidence around current recovery plans handling a major disruption is mixed. Among manufacturers in our audience who have used disaster recovery, 39% say they feel confident but still have some concerns, likely reflecting plans that work on paper but haven’t been pushed hard yet.
Another 22% say they are not confident, while 18% take a neutral, cautious view as they weigh how their plans would hold up during a major event. At the other end, 18% say they are very confident, usually where recovery processes are well established and regularly tested. Only 3% remain somewhat uncertain, showing that most manufacturers have a clear sense of where they stand.
How Do You Currently Test Your Disaster Recovery Readiness?
54% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery say they currently test their disaster recovery readiness as needed
The way recovery plans are tested matters as much as the test itself:
How manufacturers currently test disaster recovery readiness shows a mix of convenience, structure, and outside support. Industry guidance on disaster recovery testing makes clear that tests lose effectiveness when they are planned around operational convenience rather than designed to mirror the unpredictability of a real disruption.
Against that backdrop, 54% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery in our audience say testing is performed as needed, which often means exercises are scheduled when time allows, not when conditions are most realistic. That approach can leave gaps undiscovered until a real event occurs.
Another 27% run scheduled simulation exercises, adding structure, though these can still fall short if scenarios remain controlled and predictable. A further 19% rely on vendor-led testing support, often to address complexity and third-party dependencies that internal teams struggle to simulate on their own.
What Level Of Visibility Do You Prefer During A Disaster Recovery Event?
37% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery say that they prefer vendor-managed communication during a disaster recovery event
Manufacturers want insight without unnecessary complexity:
The level of visibility manufacturers prefer during a disaster recovery event comes down to staying informed without being overloaded. Vendor-managed communication is the clear favorite, with 37% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery in our audience calling it essential and another 5% seeing it as preferable, showing a strong desire for a single, accountable source to handle updates and coordination.
Real-time status updates matter too, with 14% rating them as essential and 13% as preferable, reflecting the need to know what’s happening as recovery unfolds.
Regular milestone reporting is essential for 17%, giving structure and reassurance as key stages are reached. Technical detail access sits firmly at the bottom. Only 2% see it as essential, while 9% say it’s not their top choice, and 4% say it’s not needed at all, reinforcing that most manufacturers want clarity and progress, not technical depth, when systems are being restored.
What Internal Team Is Most Involved During A Disaster Recovery Event?
71% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery say that external service partners are most involved during a disaster recovery event
Manufacturers lean heavily on outside expertise during recovery:
When it comes to the internal team most involved during a disaster recovery event, it’s striking that manufacturers point first to external service partners. Among manufacturers that have used disaster recovery in our audience, 71% say external partners take the lead, reflecting how recovery has become a specialist task that benefits from deep experience and dedicated tooling.
That reliance aligns with the scale of the US cybersecurity market, valued at $65.7 billion in 2024 and projected to grow from $73.13 billion in 2025 to $166.73 billion by 2032, as organizations increasingly turn to providers built for high-pressure recovery work.
Cross-functional response teams follow at 23%, typically acting as coordinators between business units and external experts. Operations management alone accounts for just 6%, which suggests that while they remain involved, hands-on recovery is usually pushed beyond day-to-day leadership roles once an incident escalates.
How Would You Describe Your Experience During Your Most Recent Disaster Recovery Event?
36% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery say their experience during a recent disaster recovery event was smooth and well coordinated
While recovery works, there’s still room to make it faster, calmer, and more predictable:
How manufacturers in our audience who have used disaster recovery describe their experience during their most recent disaster recovery event shows just how varied recovery can feel in practice. For 36%, the experience was smooth and well-coordinated, indicating that plans and partners worked as intended under pressure. Close behind, 35% say recovery was slower than expected, suggesting delays around coordination, decision-making, or system dependencies once the event unfolded.
Another 27% describe the experience as adequate but stressful, which probably reflects outcomes that were acceptable, but only after teams were stretched and timelines tightened. At the far end, just 2% say recovery was effective with only minor challenges, showing that truly frictionless recovery remains rare.
Which Method Do You Rely On Most For Disaster Recovery Updates?
Internal team notifications are relied on by 100% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery for updates
There is no debate about how updates should be shared:
Internal team notifications are the most relied-upon method for disaster recovery updates, with 100% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery pointing to them first. That level of agreement shows that communication during recovery is not treated as a technical afterthought; it’s part of the response itself. When systems are down and decisions need to move fast, teams need updates that are timely, consistent, and easy to act on.
Research into the importance of effective communication in cybersecurity shows that timely disclosure, consistent messaging, and proactive communication play a central role when incidents unfold. Internal notifications give manufacturers a familiar, reliable way to share progress, reduce noise, and keep recovery moving in the right direction.
What Outcome Matters Most When Evaluating Disaster Recovery Success?
59% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery say that clear communication during recovery is very important when evaluating success
Gauging the success of recovery goes beyond speed and systems:
The outcome that matters most when manufacturers evaluate disaster recovery success comes back to communication more than any single technical result. Clear communication during recovery stands out strongly, with 59% rating it as very important and a further 3% calling it absolutely essential. Another 3% still see it as somewhat important, while just 4% say it is not important, showing how closely recovery success is tied to how well teams are kept informed.
That focus aligns with the earlier research, which points to effective communication as a core part of managing cybersecurity incidents and maintaining trust while disruption unfolds.
Other outcomes still matter, but they sit further back. Confidence in future readiness is rated very important by 11% and absolutely essential by 3%, reflecting how teams judge success once the immediate pressure has passed. Speed of system restoration follows, with 9% calling it very important and 3% somewhat important, suggesting that speed matters most in context, especially when it supports clear decision-making and steady progress rather than rushed recovery. Data integrity preservation and minimal production impact both register at 3% as very important, suggesting these are seen as baseline expectations rather than the main measure of success.
Which Area Would You Prioritize For Future Disaster Recovery Investment?
54% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery would prioritize staff training and preparedness for future investment
Investment priorities lean toward readiness rather than reaction:
When manufacturers in our audience think about the area to prioritize for future disaster recovery investment, staff training and preparedness stand out first. 22% name it a top priority, and another 21% give it strong consideration, while 11% place it as a lower priority. That emphasis correlates with research into the impact of human vulnerabilities on cybersecurity, which found that more than 39% of security risks are linked to the human factor and that 95% of successful cyberattacks are caused by human error. For many manufacturers, better training feels like the most direct way to reduce disruption before recovery even comes into play.
Enhanced security measures follow closely. Another 22% see them as a top priority, 12% give them strong consideration, and only 5% treat this as a lower priority, suggesting that hardening systems goes hand in hand with improving human readiness.
Faster system restoration attracts much less urgency. Less than 1% call it a top priority, 6% give it strong consideration, and less than 1% see it as a lower priority, hinting that speed is expected to improve naturally once security and preparedness are in place. Improved reporting and analytics are a top priority for just 1%, showing it’s useful, but rarely the main focus when deciding where to invest next.
What Improvement Would Most Strengthen Your Current Disaster Recovery Approach?
Better reporting and insights are a top priority in strengthening their current approach for 50% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery
Manufacturers agree on the direction, just to different degrees:
The improvement that would most strengthen current disaster recovery approaches comes down to visibility and understanding rather than new tools or faster systems.
Better reporting and insights cleanly split manufacturers in our audience who have used disaster recovery, with 50% calling it a top priority and the other 50% saying it would help, showing universal agreement on its value. That balance suggests manufacturers see reporting as something that immediately improves decision-making, even if it’s already partially in place.
Thought leadership around incident response consistently shows that clear insight into what’s happening, what’s affected, and what actions are working helps teams limit disruption and recover more effectively. Better reporting turns recovery from guesswork into informed action, making it easier to coordinate responses, spot issues early, and keep recovery moving in the right direction.
How Likely Are You To Recommend Your Disaster Recovery Provider To Peers?
98% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery are neutral about recommending their provider to peers
Manufacturers take a measured approach to recommendations:
How likely manufacturers in our audience are to recommend their disaster recovery provider to peers points to how cautiously endorsements are given in this space. 98% are neutral, suggesting providers are judged over time rather than after a single event. Disaster recovery is called on infrequently but under intense pressure, so many teams may wait to see consistent performance before actively recommending a partner.
At the positive end, 1% say they are likely to recommend their provider, and another 1% are very likely, pointing to situations where recovery efforts clearly stood out. The pattern suggests that recommendations tend to follow proven reliability across multiple incidents, not just satisfactory delivery in a single instance.
Which City Is Your Organization Primarily Based In?
60% of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery are primarily based in Chicago
Two cities stand out where continuity has real business consequences:
Where manufacturers that have used disaster recovery in our audience are based highlights two cities shaped by different kinds of operational pressure. Chicago leads at 60%, which fits its long-standing reputation as “the city that works.” That identity grew out of Chicago’s role as one of the largest manufacturing centers in the U.S., where keeping operations running has always been essential.
New York follows at 40%, reflecting a concentration of enterprise-led manufacturing operations tied closely to finance, logistics, and global supply chains. In that environment, disruption doesn’t stay local for long, and recovery planning becomes critical for protecting interconnected systems and decision-making.
Overall, these opinions offer a clear picture of how disaster recovery is being approached in real manufacturing environments today. The data shows where priorities sit, how success is judged, and what still needs strengthening.
From communication and coordination to preparedness and reporting, the patterns point to recovery as an ongoing capability rather than a one-time plan. As manufacturing operations continue to rely on complex, connected systems, disaster recovery decisions are increasingly shaped by experience, practicality, and a focus on keeping work moving when it matters most.
About The Data
Sourced using Artios from an independent sample of 94,886 opinions of manufacturers that have used disaster recovery in the USA across X, Quora, Reddit, Bluesky, TikTok, and Threads. Responses are collected within a 95% confidence interval and 5% margin of error. Results are derived from what people describe online, from opinions expressed, and not actual questions answered by people in the sample.
