I see Business Continuity frequently evidenced as a reason by management to disallow staff responsibility for their business systems. The belief being that individuals will become too central to the operation of the organisation and will become somehow irreplaceable.
For the record I would like to state that I consider this to be failed logic.
Parents with children will encourage them to take responsibility by trusting them with tasks. Why is this important? Why? Because one day the parents won’t be there to support their children who will have to stand on their own two feet and it is better for the offspring to make mistakes with the parents there to catch them than to wait till the parents are gone and then for them to make the same mistakes. Many parents consider that their children do things in inefficient ways nonetheless they continually trust them. The world continues to progress and the human race continues to be the most successful species on the planet (hands down). It is the mechanism of passing knowledge down from one generation to another. So giving responsibility and trusting children far from decreasing continuity has a long history of ensuring it.
If anyone uses business continuity as a reason to prevent individuals from being given responsibility you might want to highlight the above point to them.
The handover – often someone figures out that something needs to be done – maybe they have realised an important omission or maybe there is a problem that only comes to light in a process when you start designing.
For whatever reason you can’t do the work yourself and you need to hand the work to someone else. This I consider to be a dangerous task the threat of information loss is immense. Here are some points I try to ensure to minimise this ever present risk.
Give it to an identifiable person – I always find it curious how top management consider it important that they know each other and feel comfortable in each others presence they carefully pick their colleagues and treat them with respect by ensuring accurate names are used and generally constantly talking to each other often informally and flexibly. However I have seen systems implemented by management which actively discourage these same forms of informal communication and actually discourage personal responsibility.
Give that person tasked responsibility for the whole task and allow them the flexibility to tackle it how they see fit. People adjust processes so that they are more productive and will use their personal skills in the workplace often when they were not hired on that basis. A regular example of this is probably individuals who can speak multiple languages. I have seen several situations where a customer from another nation arrives and someone in a team happens to speak their language in a flexible environment that person often gets involved in that task simply because good communication is the first step in tackling a problem. I was in the Premier Inn in London and I was pleased to note that the staff all had badges on them noting not just their names but the flags relating to languages they could speak. It was nice to see waiters with multiple flags on them. Gave you just a small bit of background on the person and encouraged customers of particular nationalities to seek out correct staff.
Give it to someone who is familiar with the domain (scope of work) complicated tasks need not just technical skill but domain specific skill. Most people know how a booking systems works as nearly everyone is familiar with booking things online. But would you expect a general programmer to be familiar with the process of registering births marriages and deaths or submitting tax returns for instance. If someone doesn’t have domain specific skills give them extra time.
Close physical proximity is a bonus – so called water cooler conversations are often about work even if it may stray into what might be considered gossip. For some even then gossip may inform you of particular tender subjects that allow you to better consider the respect of your colleagues and better conduct yourself in conversation to get the optimum of work between individuals. It also allows for constant review of process and answer of questions when they arise. I prefer in e-mails to ask single questions at a time. I find that if you store up questions in a massive e-mail the first two questions are asked and the others are just omitted. As far as I can tell this is a human trait. Its my experience that when I sit close to individuals I ask questions when they arise which when answered usually completely negate the need for further questions. This uses comparative advantage which is always a bonus.
Concentrate on the outcomes not the technology that they are using especially if there are no costs to something let them use what they want. Databases are databases – spreadsheets are spreadsheets – they prefer the dvorak keyboard to qwerty keyboard good for them. For some spreadsheets are better for them than databases others will always choose databases – Does it really matter. I have seen some really excellent spreadsheets for tasks that I would have preferred to use databases. You could argue one over the other for particular tasks and maybe even prove that one was better than the other on somekind of mathematical basis. But would SQL Server really be better for your granny than a spreadsheet. NO.
Ensure that the individual will have a continual link to the system post development – he should recognise that the stability and the continuation of the system is as important as simply pushing something out the door.
At least initially continually check up on the individual and ensure that things are progressing as intended. This requires time at the beginning but you should be able to wind it down after that.
Handovers are fraught with danger don’t make them be fraught with danger for you.