MORE HANDOVER SOLUTION PATTERNSKEI ITO, Waseda University
HIRONORI WASHIZAKI, Global Software Engineering Laboratory, Waseda University
JOSEPH W.YODER, The Refactory, Inc.,YOSHIAKI FUKAZAWA, Global Software Engineering Laboratory, Waseda University

The lifecycle of large software systems inevitably includes personnel changes. Most business people are familiar with the concept of ahandover, but issues with handovers became apparent in Japan when many people from the Baby Boomer Generation retired simultaneously
in 2007. Although effective handovers are crucial for seamless business operations during personnel changes, the preferable elements for a
handover are ambiguous and not well researched, motivating our research. By analyzing anti-patterns, we note handover solution patterns
to mitigate problems. However, our solution patterns may not be complete. Since our pattern language is familiar to many business people,
we held workshops to find potential pattern seeds. The workshop participants suggested 22 new handover solution patterns. Three of whichwere suggested by multiple groups: Ability check, Pair working, and Matching the knowledge. Ability check evaluates the successor’s ability
to prevent a handover failure due to lack of ability of the successor. Pair working is used to avoid handover altogether by assigning morethan two people to the same job. Matching the knowledge avoids misunderstanding knowledge by successor by filling up the gaps between
predecessor's explanation and successor's understanding
Categories and Subject Descriptors: • Social and professional topics~Project and people management • Software and its
engineering~Maintaining software • Software and its engineering~Software verification and validation
General Terms: Pattern Language
Additional Key Words and Phrases: Handover, Pattern Language, People Management, Maintaining Software
ACM Reference Format:
Ito, K., Washizaki, H, Yoder, J.W., and Fukazawa, Y. 2017. More Handover solution patterns. HILLSIDE Proc. of Conf. on Asian Pattern Lang. ofProg. 12 (March 2017), 9 pages.

1. INTRODUCTION
Handovers are very important for a business to maintain superior knowledge inside the organization. A handover is theprocess of transforming responsibilities and knowledge from the predecessor to the successor [1] [2]. Because
handovers occur frequently within most organizations, they are a persistent problem in business, and it is one of themost critical stages of the software lifecycle [3]. In fact, the lifecycle of large software systems inevitably includes
personnel changes. Despite its importance, handover problems are not well studied [1]. One study mentioned that
insufficient knowledge of the successor is one of the main problems in a handover [1], while another found that the
information sharing process contains complex problems [4].
We undertook this research to explore concrete solutions for handover issues. In order to define a solution, we decided
to use the concept of a pattern language. A pattern language is used to provide desirable solutions based upon known
best practices. They help guide a solution given the context and problem domain. Although the concept of patternlanguages has primarily been applied to architecture and software fields, it is applicable to other fields such as cooking[5] and child development [6]. Herein it is used to present desirable handover solutions.
Previously, we identified handover problems using anti-patterns. We presented three handover anti-patterns at Asian
PLoP 2016 (Unsupported to review, Background is unclear, and Necessary knowledge is omitted) [7], which wereconfirmed by questionnaires sent to businesses. Analyzing the anti-patterns revealed their origins. From this analysis,
we noted many handover solution patterns and outlined them as “A pattern language for handover” at PLoP 2016 [8].
In the paper, we introduce three concrete solution patterns (Spread of the knowledge, Handover in a different room, andFirewall for the handover). These patterns are intended for anyone who involved in a handover process and many
people empathized about the utility of these solution patterns.
However, our pattern language has potential for further development. Experienced business people may have additional
ideas for handover solution patterns. These ideas are indispensable for the development of our pattern language. To
generate new ideas, we opened our pattern language to the outside to obtain new opinions using two workshops about
the pattern language for handovers as well as via a Wiki-site (https://www65.atwiki.jp/handover/). The workshops
revealed 22 possible new patterns.

More Handover Solution Patterns: Page - 1

Herein we outline three new handover patterns, which were identified in our workshops and advocated by many groups.
These patterns are written as a mixture of the Alexandrian Pattern and Fearless Change Pattern forms [9] [10] [11]. The
context, problems, solutions, and forces are written with stories. We begin each pattern with a quote followed by a brief
description of the pattern. We then use a scenario to describe the context, problem, forces, and the solution. This
storytelling form, which is similar to that presented in the Fearless Change patterns, can be easily understood. To
describe concrete stories, we assume a fictitious company, Waseda Co., Ltd.
These patterns are intended for anyone involved in the handover process. The scenarios herein assume a systems
department, but we expect that even those without a systems’ background may find the paper useful since a handoveris a common business concept. Concrete scenarios are used to help the reader understand the use and interactions of
the patterns. In this paper, the scenario used to illustrate the patterns is when someone transfers within a company.
However, these patterns should also be applicable to other contexts such as retirement and job changes. These scenarios
assume that there is time for a formal handover (e.g., a few weeks or a few months) with the person transferring within
the company.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces concrete handover scenes using the example of afictitious company to illustrate our handover patterns. Section 3 summarizes our workshops. Section 4 outlines new
handover solution patterns (Ability checks, Pair working, and Matching the knowledge) in detail. Section 5 concludes
this paper and outlines potential future works. The appendix outlines class diagrams, which describe how the solution
patterns solve a problem.
2. SCENE
In this section, we outline the concrete scene used to describe our patterns. Each pattern has a scenario to explain its
contexts, forces, problems, and consequences. A concrete scenario aids in the comprehension of a pattern and can beused to evaluate performance [12]. (Note that this paper using the same scene as our previous paper at PLoP 2016.)
2.1 Example Scenario
Hiro works at Waseda Co., Ltd., which is one of the largest companies in Japan. Its business focuses on systems auditing
and consulting. Hiro belongs to the internal systems department and is responsible for the development, operation, andmaintenance of internal systems. He has been in charge of the financial system for a long time. However, he is beingtransferred overseas. Kei, a mid-level employee in another department, has been appointed as Hiro’s successor. Before
leaving, Hiro has to handover knowledge of the financial system to Kei.
The financial system was developed in Java about ten years ago. It is one of the biggest internal systems in Waseda Co.,
Ltd. Hiro has been in charge of the system since its inception. The system outputs the settlement of accounts for external
auditors and the government for tax purposes. An accountant in charge inputs accounting data. The system must be
revised when the tax law and other requirements change. Additionally, scheduled maintenance also causes downtimeof the system.
2.2 Characters
In the following examples, the handover consists of the activities of three actors (predecessor, successor, and third
party), but there are four characters: predecessor (Hiro), successor (Kei), and the third party’s role is shared by two
people (Joe and Yoshiaki). Each character plays a unique role.
Hiro, who is a veteran worker that has been in charge of the financial system for a long time, is being transferredoverseas. Although Hiro is staying within the organization, he is moving to a different department, and possibly inanother location. He will not be directly involved with the financial system after the handover, but he can answer
questions from the successor. Kei is a mid-level employee, who has been appointed as Hiro’s replacement. She has
been an employee of Waseda Co., Ltd for a couple of years, but in a different department. Joe is a veteran worker anda colleague of Hiro. He also works for the internal systems department, but is in charge of a different system. Yoshiaki
is the project manager of the financial system and Hiro's boss.

More Handover Solution Patterns: Page - 2

3. SUMMARY OF OUR WORKSHOPWe held two workshops about a pattern language for handovers: one at Waseda University and a Focus Group at
PLoP2016 (http://www.hillside.net/plop/2016/index.php?nav=program#focusgroups). The goals of the workshops are
to find the sequences of our 25 handover solution patterns [8] as well as to elucidate new solution patterns. The sequenceof patterns is an index of the patterns [13], which details a path through a pattern language. Because it is the process tobuild something [14], the task of creating a pattern map to find a new pattern has a very significant meaning.
Table 1. List of new handover solution patterns

Pattern nameSummary of the pattern

1

Simplify the system

24Automate a way the need forhandoverPay a person to maintain
now
Relief pitcher

Keep system simple, allowing knowledge to be easily handed
over.
Automate the work to avoid a handover.

5

3

Numberof groups
11

Keep the predecessor inside the organization.

1

Find temporary substitutes from the company.

1

Ability check

Check the ability of the successor before the personnel change.

3

6

Vacation chaos monkey

Randomly give someone vacation to see what happens.

1

7

Find another successor

If the test period does not work well, find another successor.

18Work as a team for a while

1

9Pair working

Before the predecessor leaves, work as a team to aid in a seamless
handover.
For critical tasks, avoid handovers by using a pair programing.

10

Cross training

2

11

For example, create a review manual.

1

13

Make
key
persondependencies visible
Develop a review process
for docs
Matching the knowledge

Work with a rotation between more than two people and share
their work.
Clarify the ownership of knowledge.

Successor takes a note to confirm the understanding is right.

3

14

Prioritize2

15

Handover evaluation

Prioritize knowledge when there is insufficient time for acomprehensive handover.
Evaluate and visualize risks for handover failure.

16

Get motivated

Recognize the successor's contributions to increase amount input.

1

17

Official project by sponsor

118

Order of transfers

19

Meeting together

Recognize a handover as an official project, to secure the timeand human resources.
The most knowledgeable and experienced person leaves lastwhen most of a team transfer.
Have the successor and predecessor meet prior to a handover.

20

Professional questioner

1

21

Create new knowledge

Include a person who asks insightful questions to avoid loss oftacit knowledge.
Recreate lost knowledge.

22

Accept reduced capacity

If the knowledge is lost, accept the reduced capacity.

2

12

3

1

1

1
1

2

We recruited people interested in handovers. About 25 people participated in our workshops in Tokyo and Illinois.
These focus groups were intended for anyone involved in the handover process. We divided participants into groups
and distributed pattern cards that briefly described our 25 patterns. Then each group brainstormed the pattern sequences,priorities, new issues, and solutions not on the cards. Based on the discussion, the participants created a pattern map byMore Handover Solution Patterns: Page - 3

identifying the sequence of the pattern cards. In addition, we asked the participants to write down new patterns on blankcards. Finally, each group shared their pattern maps and any issues they noted. These workshops led us to find thesequence of the patterns. We outlined 5 pattern maps and 22 possible new patterns. We do not limit participants of ourworkshops to IT companies and Japanese companies. Therefore, these new patterns can be used in fields other than IT
and in countries other than Japan.
The “Number of groups” shows the number of groups that proposed the same pattern. According to the table, eightpatterns were proposed by multiple groups, suggesting that they might have some universality. The higher the Numberof groups, the more people are suggesting, and has used by many people. Therefore, we chose the pattern with the most
proposers. However, some patterns proposed by a single group were evaluated as ingenious and interesting; for example,
some participants had a positive impression of "Evaluation of the handover". Overall, we received excellent feedback
from the workshops, and the participants might have gained insight on how to achieve better handovers.
Herein, we outline three new solution patterns, Ability check, Pair working, and Matching the knowledge. These patterns
were proposed by the largest number of “Number of groups”.
4. NEW HANDOVER SOLUTION PATTERNSIn this section, we introduce three concrete new handover solution patterns. By using Ability check, the capacity of thesuccessor can be verified in advance. Pair working avoids the handover, mitigating the impact of the personnel change.
Matching the knowledge is a pattern to match the views of both the predecessor and the successor so that there is nodifference in the explanation of the predecessor and the understanding of the successor.

More Handover Solution Patterns: Page - 4

4.1

Ability check“Seeing is believing” — Japanese old saying
Before the actual change, check the successor’s ability by making the successor work on behalf of the predecessor. This
will help determine the successor’s ability.

Hiro has been in charge of the financial system for a long time, but he will soon be transferring overseas. His successor
will be Kei, who is a mid-level employee of Waseda Co., Ltd. She is currently providing technical support in the sales
department and has never worked on the financial system.
***
Yoshiaki needs to assess Kei’s ability to determine if she is the right person to be Hiro’s successor. Otherwise,
important knowledge and technology that Hiro has might be lost due to her lack of ability.
Since the financial system is very important, it is necessary to avoid any troubles. While, understanding the knowledgeof the financial system is difficult because the system is very complex. The knowledge and experiences of the person
in charge is the key factor for smooth system operations. However, nobody of the internal system department has
worked with Kei, and her ability is unknown. There is still enough time before the personnel change. It is possible for
Yoshiaki to have Kei come to the internal system department for about a week to assess her ability.
Therefore:
To access the ability of the successor, work together with the successor for several days. .
Yoshiaki asked Kei’s current boss if Kei could come to the internal systems department for a few days to determine if
she is a good fit as Hiro’s successor. As her current boss approved, Yoshiaki set up an ability check and had theopportunity to see Kei’s ability. By the check, Yoshiaki is able to know how much to support Kei after the change.
During the ability check, Kei performed the job without any trouble. Yoshiaki is confident that that Kei is the appropriate
person to be Hiro’s successor.
***
In Japan, new employees in many companies have three months to six months trial employment periods. However, it
might be too long of an ability check for a handover. Thus, the third party should determine the appropriate duration of
the Ability check considering the timeframe of the personnel change. Note that the person in charge of the financial
system during the ability check is still the predecessor, Hiro. Yoshiaki must not push responsibility or have too high of
expectations for Kei since she is not yet the person in charge. Some Japanese business people said this pattern isdesirable to be executed, but it is difficult due to chronic staffing shortage.
By using the ability check, apprentice [8] is automatically executed. The ability check is one method to realize successor
as capable as predecessor [8]. If the successor is unable to fulfill the expected role during the ability check, then findanother successor should be used (Table 1). However, if time or other reasons prohibit considering another successor,
the third party must be prepared for support developing successor and reunion for old members [8] to fulfill the
successor’s lack of ability. Vacation chaos monkey (Table 1) is a variation of this pattern.

More Handover Solution Patterns: Page - 5

4.2

Pair working“Lay up for a rainy day” — English saying
It is impossible to set the risk of loss of knowledge in a handover to 0%. To completely avoid the risk, handovers can
be avoided by having more than two people do the same job.

The financial system is one of the most important systems in Waseda Co., Ltd., and it must be stable in any situation.
When Yoshiaki considered the operating system of the system, he thought Hiro is a proper person to be in charge since
he was a project member during the system development and has much experience. However, it is possible that Hirocould be transferred, and in such circumstances a handover cannot be avoided.
***
How can Yoshiaki avoid the risk of loss of knowledge due to a handover?
The financial system is a critical system. It cannot lose data or stop business. Hiro surely can operate the system stably,
but the risk caused by his personnel change cannot be avoided unless Yoshiaki creates a situation that does not requirea handover. There are other members in the internal systems department besides Hiro and Yoshiaki. Joe is one of them.
He is a veteran employee and has worked with Hiro for a long time. It is possible for Hiro and Joe to work together.
Therefore:Appoint Joe and Hiro as the person in charge of the financial system to ensure a backup of the knowledge.
Hiro and Joe have worked on the operation of the financial system together, sharing knowledge and technology witheach other. Several years later, Hiro is transferred to overseas, but Joe has knowledge of the financial system. Thus,
knowledge is not lost when Hiro transfers. Joe also shares work with Kei, the successor of Hiro. Even if there are
personnel changes, because there are two persons in charge, one remains, ensuring that knowledge is never lost.
***
The pair combination must be carefully selected to ensure pair compatibility. Using this pattern is expensive as it
doubles the personnel cost. Consequently, this pattern should be used only for critical work. If this pattern is costprohibitive, another option is Cross-training (Table 1). Cross training that makes multiple persons in charge share theirwork has the same effect as pair working, and it does not cost than pair working. Because of that, cross training iscommonly used in Japan.
Spread of knowledge [8] shares the knowledge of the predecessor to a third party before handover. In contrast, thispattern always tries to share knowledge. Pair working is a development of the Spread of knowledge. This pattern issimilar to Pair programming [15] because this pattern focuses the effect of Pair programming in a handover. Therefore,
this pattern can be considered as an instance of Pair programming.

More Handover Solution Patterns: Page - 6

4.4

Matching the knowledge“Change before you have to “— Jack Welch, (American businessman)Sometimes the explanation and the document created by the predecessor are difficult for the successor or third party tounderstand. In such a case, the successor should actively replace them with documents to match the predecessor’s
knowledge and the successor’s understanding.

As soon as Hiro accepts the overseas transfer, he begins his handover with his successor Kei. Since knowledge about
the financial system is very important, Kei tries to understand Hiro’s explanation. But Hiro’s explanation is not good,and Kei cannot understand his telling. What Hiro wants to convey and what Kei understands do not match.
***
What can the successor do to understand when the predecessor’s explanation is unclear?
Although it is important to create and transfer documents to a successor in a personnel change, these internal documents
are rarely referred to. Often issues arise because the predecessor’s communication skills are insufficient or thepredecessor tends to postpone creating such documents [15]. In such situation, discrepancies tend to occur between theunderstanding of successors and the knowledge of their predecessors.
Because Kei is motivated to learn about the financial system, she takes the handover seriously. She takes notes of Hiro’s
explanations and later organizes her notes to make the knowledge easier to understand.
Therefore:
The successor visualizes their understanding with notes and let their predecessors check. By doing so, match
recognition and avoid misunderstanding.
Kei took notes during Hiro’s verbal explanations as well as when she read the handover documents. Note taking andsupplementary explanations from self-learning help Kei grasp the knowledge. Moreover, these materials allow Kei to
ask Hiro if her understanding is correct. As a result, Kei can match her understanding and Hiro’s knowledge andsuccessfully understand the financial system.
***
The important point of this pattern is that the successor should confirm his or her understanding of the knowledge withthe successor to avoid misunderstanding the handover knowledge. Even when the explanation and a document of thepredecessor are easy to understand, this pattern provides utility as taking notes and writing supplementary explanations
are great help in understanding knowledge.
Immediate question at the unclear spot [8] is used to solve the successor’s question. Matching the knowledge is used
when Immediate question at the unclear spot cannot cover all the questions. This pattern is reinforced by Incremental
handover [8] since it increases the opportunity to confirm with the predecessor. Motivation of the successor is a key
factor in this pattern. The third party should enhance the successor’s motivation for the handover by using Evaluationof the handover and Get motivated (Table 1).

More Handover Solution Patterns: Page - 7

5. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKTo improve our pattern language, we opened a Wiki-site and held workshops to increase feedback about our patternlanguage. Herein we discuss 22 new patterns discovered in our workshops, which are effective methods for patternmining. Additionally, we describe three of these new patterns in detail (Ability check, Pair working, and Matching theknowledge). To better understand these patterns in relation to the handover issues, we used concrete scenarios.
We envision four future works for a pattern language for handovers. First, our pattern language defines the third party
as an indirect person for the handover. In reality, there are various kinds of indirect persons for handovers. We need todefine the roles of these other persons. Second, our pattern language does not address important questions as part of thehandover process, including, “What should be shared verbally and what should be formally documented?” Third, thesequences of the new handover solution pattern and our handover solution patterns have yet to be defined. We should
think about sequences. Finally, some patterns remain to be discovered.
ACKKNOWLEDGEMENT
We thank all the respondents of the questionnaire. We would also like to thank our shepherd Hongyu Zhang for his
valuable feedback during the shepherding process.
REFERENCES[1]

Ahmad Salman Khan., Mira Kajki-Mattsson. 2010. “Core handover Problems,” in Proc 11th International Conference on Product
Focused Software 2010 (PROFES’10), Limerick, Ireland, 2010., 135-139[2]

Ahmad Salman Khan., Mira Kajki-Mattsson. 2010. “Taxonomy of Handover Activities,” in Proc 11th International Conference on
Product Focused Software 2010 (PROFES’10), Limerick, Ireland, 2010., 131-134[3]Thomas Volleman. 1990. “Transitioning From Development to Maintenance,” in Proc Software Maintenance, 1990, Proceedings.,
Conference on 1990, San Diego, USA, 1990., 189-199[4]

T. Grandon Gill., Eli Cohen. 2008. “Research themes in complex Informing”, Informing Science: the International Journal of an
Emerging Transdiscipline (2008, Vol. 11) 1)., pp. 147-164[5]

Yuma Akado., Shiori Shibata., Ayaka Yoshikawa., Akimitsu Sano., Takashi Iba. 2016. “Cooking Patterns: A Pattern Language forEveryday Cooking,” in Proc 5th Asian Conference on Pattern Language of Programs 2016 (Asian PLoP 2016), Taipei, Taiwan, 2016.

[6]

Alice Sasabe., Taichi Isaku.,Tomoki Kaneko., Emi Kubonaga., Takashi Iba. 2016. “Parenting Patterns: A Pattern Language for
Growing with your Child,” in Proc 5th Asian Conference on Pattern Language of Programs 2016 (Asian PLoP 2016), Taipei, Taiwan,
2016.

[7]

Kei Ito., Hironori Washizaki., Yoshiaki Fukazawa. 2016. “Handover anti-patterns,” in Proc 5th Asian Conference on Pattern
Language of Programs 2016 (Asian PLoP 2016), Taipei, Taiwan, 2016.

[8]

Kei Ito., Hironori Washizaki., Joseph W. Yoder., Yoshiaki Fukazawa. 2016. “A Pattern Language for Handover,” in Proc 23rd
Conference on Pattern Language of Programs 2016 (PLoP 2016), Illinois, U.S., 2016.

[9]

JosephW.
Yoder.,
Rebecca
Wirfs-Brock.
2016.
AsianPLoP
http://pl.csie.ntut.edu.tw/asianplop2016/files/AsianPLoP2016BootcampPatternWriting.pdf[10]

Manns, M. L., and Rising, L. Fearless Change: Patterns for Introducing New Ideas. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2004.

[11]

Manns, M. L., and Rising, L. More Fearless Change: Strategies for Making your Ideas Happen. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2015.

[12]

Joseph W. Yoder., Rebecca Wirfs-Brock., Ademar Aguiar. 2014. “QA to AQ Patterns about transitioning from Quality Assurance toAgile Quality,” in Proc 3rd Asian Conference on Pattern Language of Programs 2014 (Asian PLoP 2014), Tokyo, Japan, 2014.

[13]

Christopher Alexander., Sara Ishikawa., Murray Silverstein. 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford
University Press, Inc[14]

Neil B. Harrison., James O. Coplien. “Pattern sequences” in Proc 6th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs 2001
(Euro PLoP 2001), in Kloster Irsee in Bavaria, Germany, 2001.

[15]

James O. Coplien., Neil B. Harrison. 2005. Organizational Patterns of Agile Software Development. Pearson Prentice Hall

Pattern

Writing

Bootcamp,

APPENDIXWe describe the status before and after using the patterns by class diagrams and object diagrams to express the results
More Handover Solution Patterns: Page - 8

of the patterns. By using UML, readers can easily understand how a pattern works and what problems it solves. Herein
we introduce three figures to describe “Ability check”, “Pair working”, and “Matching the knowledge”.
Ability check

Figure 1. Ability check

As seen in Fig. 1, the capacity of each individual can only be referenced within the same section. However, the successor
is in a different section from the predecessor and the third party. Thus, they do not know the successor’s capacity.
However, by using Ability check, the successor will belong to the same section as the predecessor and third party,
allowing the third party to access the capacity of the successor.

Pair working

Figure 2. Pair working

Before using pair working, a job and the person in charge is a multiple-to-one relationship. In this state, there is a greatrisk that the person in charge will be changed due to personnel changes, making it impossible to avoid a handover. Pair
working makes a job and the person in charge a multiple-to-multiple relationship. Even if one person in charge ischanged, there are other persons in charge, greatly reducing the impact of a personnel change. Particularly importantjob should be handled by more than one person.

Matching the knowledge

Figure 3. Matching the knowledge

Before using this pattern, the predecessor and the successor see the different knowledge, creating a gap between theknowledge that the predecessor and the successor. However, a memorandum created by the successor, makes thepredecessor and the successor see the same item, and they can match their knowledge. Thanks to a memorandum(matching the knowledge), the successor acquires necessary knowledge.

More Handover Solution Patterns: Page - 9