No, this is not taken from the script of the Homeland TV series, but it is advice often given – but not often taken – when contracting with third parties. Good exit management is after all a key enabler of resilient supply chains.

The reasons for exiting a service or relationship do vary, so it is important to ensure that exit planning fits the nature of the service rather than use a one-size fits all approach. A good example of this is consideration given to how long and the type of resources required to introduce the current service being contracted: if the planning and transition of the new service takes 9-12 months when everyone is on-board and keen to deliver on time, then an exit period of 3-6 months under very different relationship circumstances is unlikely to be sufficient.  In short, the approach to exit, or exit strategy, needs to be thought through at time of sourcing not after sourcing has completed.  In this way the contract and operational relationship can be set up to support exit.

Another challenge in exit management is maintaining a current exit plan, one that captures sufficient detail of the service, especially an outsourced one, where you may want (or need) to have the option of bringing in-house.  This requires the exit plan to be developed in a reasonable period post contract and for it to be regularly reviewed and updated as changes to the service occur through BAU or run phase.

The advantage of this approach is that in a stressed or unplanned exit situation-  caused by financial failure of the supplier, poor performance, early termination, etc – there is a baseline plan that can support the exit, recognising that exit will need to be accelerated compared to the target plan.  This plays to the famous motto that while a plan may prove useless on first contact with the enemy, the activity of planning is invaluable.  From a resilience perspective, this is clearly a key factor, and should tie into the organisation’s business continuity planning.

Taking a formal approach to exit management sounds like common sense but it does tend to get put to the back of the queue when transitioning to a new service, and in some instances this failure of upfront thinking and action has proved to be expensive for the customer as per Hutchison 3G vs Ericsson

So, thinking seriously about exit only at the time of exit is an approach with many risks attached to it – mostly foreseeable ones, it has to be said.  Waiting until exit can actually mean that you stay with a provider or service that is not delivering the value you expect or need because the risk of change is greater. Even if the service is satisfactory, it may be the case that a wider strategy cannot be enabled with the current service construct and hence opportunities are missed by the business.  Learning a lesson from the spy novels would clearly be a step worth taking.