.jpg){kind=link}
- Published
- Updated
A recurring problem may sit between two procedures rather than inside either team’s instructions. The sender considers its work finished while the recipient has not accepted responsibility. Examine the handover supporting the shared outcome instead of forcing every issue into a one-sided error category.
Scope of the decision
A handover transfers meaning and acceptance, not merely a file. Define expected content, acceptance criteria, failure communication and ownership of unresolved issues together. Two green performance reports do not demonstrate that the joint task was completed; seek evidence at the boundary itself.
Worked review
For example, a site list reaches a vendor on time, but the recipient does not add new sites to its service scope. The sender reports successful delivery and the vendor reports good service for existing sites. A joint review reveals no acceptance step. The correction establishes verified acceptance rather than simply increasing email traffic.
Practical checks
- Compare the sender’s completion measure with the recipient’s starting condition.
- Explain who receives an unaccepted handover and through which route.
- Check that both parties use the same scope at the next real handover.
Acceptance and limits
Accept the boundary control when both teams can describe the shared event consistently and failed handovers remain visible. A general contractual responsibility does not alone close an operational gap. Revisit assumptions when another team or subprocess enters the workflow.
Frequently asked questions
- Does compliance by both parties close the issue?
- No. Following separate steps may not establish a correct and complete joint output.
- Does every handover need a meeting?
- No. Proportionate acceptance evidence and an exception route can provide more concrete assurance.