Handover playbook / Learning example
The next proposal should not wait for your return.
A client is waiting for a proposal. The partner who knows the account is away. Here is how someone else can take the work forward while keeping commitments in human hands.
01 / The sources
What Malik can use. What is still missing.
| Illustrative source | Permitted use | Open question |
|---|---|---|
| Meeting note | Restate the agreed need and objectives | The starting date remains to be confirmed |
| Current service description | Describe the delivery scope | Nora approves any changes |
| Blank proposal template | Structure the draft | No confidential previous client file is copied |
| Fee decision | Complete the commercial section once approved | The decision is absent from the initial folder |
02 / The procedure
A method the next person can follow.
- 01
Check the inputs
Malik checks access permission, document versions and missing information.
- 02
Prepare the structure
The need, scope, stages and open questions go into the template. An AI assistant can help prepare the draft using only these sources.
- 03
Tie commitments to sources
Decisions about dates, fees and deliverables stay visible. A blank becomes a question, never an assumption presented as an agreement.
- 04
Have the draft reviewed
Nora checks the substance, resolves the questions and decides the next step. The draft stays internal until she approves it.
03 / Try an exception
A good procedure knows when to stop.
Change one item in the fictional folder and see what the next person can prepare. The rest of the method stays the same.
Proposed output
Prepare the substance. Leave the fee open.
Malik drafts the need, scope and stages. The fee section says “Nora’s decision required”. He requests that decision; no amount is guessed.
Reviewer: Nora, the responsible partner. Sending: a separate human decision.
A local exercise with fictional information. No client documents are connected and no proposal is sent.
04 / The handover test
Evidence starts when another person does the work.
In a real engagement, give the next person a representative task and compare the result with agreed criteria. Complete this record after the test; it does not show test results.
| Observation to record | Success criterion to agree |
|---|---|
| Source access | The next person finds the approved documents and versions |
| Draft quality | The need and scope remain faithful to the sources |
| Missing information | Missing decisions are visible, with no invented answers |
| Remaining dependency | Questions sent back to the owner are recorded and explained |
| Accountability | The right person reviews and approves the next step |
The decision after the test
If the next person lacks context, improve the method. If a simple rule is enough, keep a procedure without AI. If the draft is useful but takes too much correction, narrow the scope. Expand the system when the real work supports it.
What the firm needs to take over
The procedure, sources and access rights, approved examples, acceptance criteria, exception log and maintenance instructions. The scope identifies licensed components and handback arrangements.
What work stops when you are away?
Choose one process, identify the person who will take over and examine what they still need. That is a concrete starting point for succession preparation or an acquisition handover.
Explore my first process ↗