Root cause analysis: getting past the first plausible answer
Root cause analysis works out why something went wrong deeply enough that fixing it prevents a recurrence. Its main difficulty is stopping too early, at an answer that sounds satisfying.
A handover document exists for the questions your successor does not know to ask. Write it while you still care, and structure it around the week rather than the job description.
A handover document is what one person writes so another can take over their work without rediscovering it. It matters at a resignation, but equally before parental leave, a long absence, a role change, or a project moving between teams — and it is almost always written too late, in the final days, by someone whose attention has already moved on.
The useful structure is not the job description. It is the week: what happens regularly, what is in flight right now, who to talk to, and the accumulated knowledge that exists nowhere else. That last category is the reason the document exists at all.
The hardest content to capture is what has become invisible through familiarity. A practical trick: for a week before writing, note every time you do something a newcomer could not have worked out — a shortcut, a name to ask, an unwritten rule. That list becomes the most valuable section, and it cannot be reconstructed from memory on the last afternoon.
Two patterns account for most of it. The document is written but never read together, so the successor discovers it only when they are already stuck and cannot ask the author. And the document describes the formal job rather than the real one — the meetings attended, the systems used, but not the fact that a particular client escalates every quarter and the fix is a phone call to one person. The formal parts can be reconstructed from anywhere; the informal ones leave with the individual, which is precisely why the document should be weighted towards them.
In Ettex, the document lives in Ettex Docs — a template so every handover starts from the same structure, threaded comments so the successor's questions attach to the paragraph that prompted them, version history so the next handover starts from the last one, and share links so the document points at procedures rather than copying them. Recurring commitments are easiest to reconstruct from Ettex Calendar, work in progress from the cards in Ettex Board, contacts from Ettex Contacts, and the systems-and-access inventory belongs as a table in Ettex Records, where it doubles as the checklist for removing access later.
The boundary: Ettex has no knowledge-transfer or succession feature. Nothing here prompts what to document, detects undocumented knowledge, tracks whether a handover happened, or maps who else can do a job. It is a document with comments and history, plus the calendar and board you already use to reconstruct the content. The discipline of writing it early is the part that matters and it is not a software problem.
A written record of a role's accountabilities, recurring commitments, work in progress, contacts, systems and undocumented knowledge, written so a successor can take over without rediscovering it.
As soon as the departure or absence is known. Written in the final days it captures the formal parts and loses the informal knowledge that was the point.
Long enough to cover the recurring work and the unwritten knowledge — often five to ten pages. Link to existing procedures rather than copying them in.
The one covering what only the author knows: workarounds, quirks of particular clients, the thing that breaks every quarter. Everything else can be reconstructed.
Yes — they should read it and ask questions while the author is still there, and those answers should go back into the document. Their questions are the gap analysis.
No. Parental leave, long absence, role changes and projects moving between teams all need one, and writing it when nobody is leaving is far easier.
A handover document is worth what its "things only I know" section is worth. Start early, structure it around the week, link rather than duplicate, and read it through with your successor while you are still there to answer.
Root cause analysis works out why something went wrong deeply enough that fixing it prevents a recurrence. Its main difficulty is stopping too early, at an answer that sounds satisfying.
A code of conduct says how people here are expected to behave and what happens when they do not. Its value is not aspiration — it is having decided the hard cases before one arrives.
A project charter names the objective, the boundaries, the sponsor and the person authorised to run the work. Its main use comes months later, when people disagree about what was agreed.