Part 1 of 2: Oracle Cutover Governance with full transparency of risks & issues

Summary

How we set-up the Governance for a multi-function, multi-site Oracle Cutover so that risks & issues were transparent and clearly understood by the Programme Board, resulting in informed and in‑meeting decisions, safeguarding go-live.

What We Did and How We Did It

In complex implementations like Oracle cutovers where the system itself is complex and has many interfacing systems there are many likely causes for issues. The perfect cutover requires “4 rights”: doing the right things at the right time and doing things right and in the right order. To create Governance with full transparency on risks & issues requires a mechanism that reports against these “4 rights”. This mechanism depends on having three components in place:

1. Integrated Plan – A set of detailed integrated plans with clear dependencies
2. Decision Gates – Clearly defined and times decision gates of two types. The first are Business Readiness Gates that aim to assess the level at which the business itself and the solution are ready for the cutover. These include a variety of critical points such as: UAT entry, UAT Exit, Cutover Go, and Service Transition Complete. The second are Solution Readiness Gates that aim to assess the technical readiness of the solution. These include a variety of critical points such as: DR Test Entry, DR Test Exit, Environment Build, 3rd Party System Check, CEMLI Check, Interfaces On.
3. Predefined Criteria – Each Gate should have clearly defined criteria, agreed ahead of starting the cutover process. The criteria at each gate should not necessarily be limited to the titled focus of the gate – it is best practice to consider a number of criteria in each gate covering technical elements (such as CEMLI checks, status of 3rd party systems, status of interfaces), status of workstreams (such as data migration, month-end process, production build resourcing) and business readiness (such as staff training and communication, post go-live support, Helpdesk readiness).  The criteria should be progressive i.e. the first check is not when a criteria is expected to be complete and ready, rather the check should be made earlier to assess if the expected time will be met.

The Outcome

The governance had a transparent view of risks and issues and last minute surprises were avoided. As a result the Go / No-Go decision at each gate was based on a true understanding and assessment of risk, not a mechanical Yes/No on the criteria. The Programme Board was therefore in a position to make informed and in‑meeting decisions, safeguarding go-live.