How to use this guide
This is general operational guidance for New Zealand SMEs. Adapt it to the business and the decisions involved. It is not a complete compliance checklist, legal opinion or a substitute for advice about a particular situation. Examples are illustrative and do not describe client engagements or promised outcomes.
What evidence shows a handover problem?
Look for work that is returned for clarification, sits without an owner, is entered twice or is completed by the wrong team. Capture the sequence, not just the final delay. Record when the sender released the task, when the receiver noticed it and what information was missing. A delay may come from an unclear queue or competing priorities rather than an individual’s lack of effort.
Ask each side what ‘ready’ means. The sender may consider a form complete while the receiver also needs an authorised scope, a customer confirmation or a named approver. Make those differences explicit. Include the exception route: an urgent task with incomplete information should have a deliberate decision, not quietly become the normal way the business operates.
How do you make ownership visible?
Agree who holds the work before acceptance, how acceptance is recorded and what happens when the receiver cannot proceed. A shared status should explain the next action and owner, not only display a colour. Review rejected handovers with both teams and remove avoidable ambiguity. Where a control exists for safety, privacy or financial reasons, involve the responsible specialist before altering it.
- Sample a few recent handovers and compare the sender’s completion standard with the receiver’s needs.
- Agree a clear acceptance point, required information, next owner and exception route.
- Trial the arrangement and review returns, waiting time and confusion with both teams.
A working structure
Handover review log
- Task, sending owner and receiving owner
- Time released and time accepted
- Required information and acceptance standard
- Missing item, return reason or queue issue
- Exception decision and authorised owner
- Improvement, trial period and review finding
Illustrative example
Illustrative example: a sales team sends jobs to operations immediately after receiving verbal customer interest. Operations cannot schedule them because scope and delivery information are still uncertain. A review separates an early sales lead from an accepted job and defines who confirms the missing information. Urgent exceptions remain possible, but require a named decision-maker. The change addresses the transfer of responsibility rather than blaming either team for every returned task.
Questions about this guide
Is a checklist always the answer?
No. A checklist helps only when its fields reflect a shared acceptance standard and someone owns checking them. Unclear authority or insufficient receiving capacity needs a different response.
What should we measure first?
Use a small set: returns for missing information, time waiting for acceptance and tasks without a named next owner. Explain the definitions so teams are measuring the same event.
Official sources and further guidance
These primary sources provide additional context. The operational suggestions and working outlines above are YJ Consulting’s general guidance; the links do not establish that an authority has endorsed this guide.
When YJ Consulting can help
YJ Consulting can help an Auckland or New Zealand SME map the current practice, organise the relevant records and turn the findings into an agreed improvement plan. The engagement starts by confirming the question, responsible adviser, information available and useful outputs. Legal, payroll, financial or other specialist questions should be identified and assigned separately.
Explore the relevant service · Service-scope information · Book an initial conversation