There is someone everyone calls when the normal process stops working. They know which exception matters, where the useful notes are kept and who at the supplier can help.
That experience is valuable. The operational concern arises when important work cannot continue acceptably without that person’s involvement. Leave gets interrupted, decisions wait, and other staff become reluctant to act without checking first.
Reducing key-person dependency starts by understanding what another authorised person would need to take responsibility safely.
Notice the everyday signals
A dependency may be visible long before someone leaves the business. Look for situations such as:
- questions and exceptions always returning to the same person;
- holidays requiring repeated calls or messages;
- important instructions living in private notes or message threads;
- only one person being able to approve a particular action;
- a supplier escalation depending on a personal relationship;
- work waiting because others cannot tell whether the next step is safe.
These observations do not establish that someone is withholding knowledge. They may reflect how the business grew, how access was assigned or how much time has been available to prepare another person.
Value the expertise while examining the dependency
The experienced person often holds context that is difficult to capture in a checklist. They recognise unusual combinations of signals and understand why previous decisions were made.
Involve them in explaining that judgement. Ask where others need to make the same decision and where specialist involvement should remain necessary. Some activities should still require specific authority or expertise.
The useful distinction is between an intentional specialist responsibility with cover and escalation arrangements, and an accidental dependency that the business has never examined.
Look at four forms of concentration
Knowledge
Can another person explain the normal steps, recognise an exception and find the relevant history? Instructions are more useful when they explain what a successful result looks like and when to stop and ask for help.
Access
Does the covering person have their own approved access to the information and systems needed? A written procedure cannot compensate for missing permissions. Sharing someone’s credentials is not an appropriate shortcut.
Decision authority
Can another person approve a correction, contact a supplier or accept a temporary workaround within agreed limits? Being able to follow a procedure does not automatically give someone authority to make its decisions.
Working relationships
Are important contacts and escalation routes available through the business, or only through one person’s memory and personal messages? Another person may need an introduction and clarity about what the supplier is authorised to discuss with them.
A hypothetical example: an unusual billing exception
This is an illustrative scenario, not a Neith client case.
A business has documented its monthly billing process. Most invoices follow the standard steps, but a small set requires an adjustment before release. One experienced employee recognises those accounts and knows which manager must approve the change.
A colleague can run the documented process but cannot confidently identify the exceptions. They also lack permission to make the adjustment and do not know who can approve it when the usual manager is away.
Adding another paragraph to the procedure may help, but it will not resolve all three gaps. The business needs an explanation of the exception, appropriate access and a decision route that works during absence.
Use a supported walkthrough
Choose one important task or exception. Ask a second authorised person to describe how they would handle it, with the experienced person available to explain the context.
Use a discussion, a suitable test environment or an approved example that protects confidential information. Do not interrupt a live service or deliberately withdraw support to see whether the team can cope.
Ask the colleague to explain how they would recognise the situation, locate the information, decide the next step and confirm the result. Note where they pause. A pause can reveal a missing permission, an unclear decision boundary or an assumption the written process leaves unstated.
Treat those gaps as information about the operating arrangement, rather than a test of the colleague’s competence.
Record what someone needs to act
A practical handover can cover:
- the signals that trigger the task;
- the normal steps and expected result;
- important exceptions and the reason they matter;
- where approved information and access are obtained;
- decisions the covering person can make;
- stop conditions and escalation contacts;
- how to record the action and check the result.
Keep the record where the people responsible can find it. Assign someone to maintain it and allow time for practice. A document that nobody has used may still contain assumptions that only its author understands.
Revisit the arrangement when things change
A new supplier, revised system or different approval process can make an earlier handover incomplete. Review the affected tasks when those changes occur, and use planned leave as an opportunity to confirm arrangements in advance.
If many tasks depend on one person, begin with the service whose interruption would matter most. Consider the consequence of delay, the availability of a safe workaround and how quickly suitable help can be reached. These are discussion prompts, not a precise risk score.
The question to keep asking
Could someone else act safely, or would they still need to call the same person?
The answer helps distinguish a useful handover from a collection of instructions. It also identifies where the business needs to clarify access, authority or support.
For a related perspective, read about ownership when several teams deliver a service. Neith’s approach to key-person dependency considers these connections around the work, not just the amount of documentation available.