Transaction technology perspectives.

Technology diligence often identifies a shared service or a consent requirement. The next question is harder: what must happen, who can make it happen and what evidence will demonstrate that the receiving business can operate?

A condition precedent (CP) is a matter for the transaction documents and legal advisers. An operational dependency may still need to be resolved even if it is not a CP. Treating every technology issue as a legal condition obscures the delivery work; treating none of them as transaction-critical can leave an important assumption unchallenged.

Build a usable dependency record

For each material service, record its present provider, future owner, required access or transfer, constraints and target date. Connect the record to a decision-maker and the evidence needed to close it. A licence, supplier consent, data responsibility or identity dependency may involve several teams rather than one technical owner.

Keep facts and assumptions separate. “The licence will transfer” is an assumption until the applicable position has been reviewed by the appropriate advisers and supported by evidence. Programme planning should show the effect of that assumption being wrong, including alternatives and sequencing.

Questions before signing or completion

• Which dependencies could change the perimeter, cost or timing of the transaction?
• Which issues require legal, procurement or deal-adviser confirmation?
• Who owns the delivery action, who can approve it and who accepts the evidence?
• What must be escalated if the dependency cannot be resolved by the required date?

The useful result is not a longer risk list. It is a smaller set of explicit decisions supported by accountable actions.

A transitional service agreement provides a bridge, but the receiving business still needs somewhere to land. An exit plan is credible when it explains how each service will be replaced, transferred or retired, and how continuity will be tested and accepted.

Start at service level rather than agreement level. An application may depend on seller identity, network access, hosting, a group-held licence and a support team. The application migration can appear complete while those surrounding obligations remain unresolved.

Work backwards from service acceptance

Define the intended service owner and the evidence they will need. Then plan the access, data, supplier, support and knowledge-transfer work that precedes acceptance. Legal and commercial advisers should address the applicable agreement terms; the programme should make delivery implications visible.

• Is the future service scope clear, including support and security responsibilities?
• Are exit assistance and knowledge transfer reflected in the delivery sequence?
• Are licence, supplier and data dependencies tracked alongside the technical migration?
• Are residual costs, exceptions and unresolved actions owned after exit?

Protect the period after transition

Closing a project can remove the very coordination that sustained the service. A proportionate interim period gives the receiving team time to establish its operating rhythm, deal with exceptions and take permanent ownership. Handover should leave usable context, not just a document archive.

A green technology workstream does not necessarily mean the business can trade, serve clients or run its operations. Day 1 planning should start with the critical business services and trace the technology, people and supplier dependencies underneath them.

Access is a useful example. A user account may exist, but the service can still fail if authentication, network routes, data permissions or support arrangements are not in place. Service-level scenarios expose these gaps more effectively than checking individual tasks in isolation.

Define acceptance before cutover

Agree what the business owner needs to see, who will run the checks and how exceptions will be handled. Test the operational path, including support and security responsibilities. Where evidence is incomplete, make that limitation visible to the accountable decision-maker.

• Which services are essential at completion, and who is accountable for each?
• What access, data, security and supplier dependencies must remain available?
• Who can decide on cutover, escalate an exception and activate contingency?
• What evidence will the receiving owner accept, and what remains to be confirmed?

Day 1 is a point in an operating transition, not the end of it. Retain ownership for the residual work and connect it to TSA exit and the permanent operating model.