Introduction
In complex industries like energy, utilities, and mining, the handover from capital project to operations is a critical moment. Assets shift from development into live use. Documentation is finalized. Control is, in theory, transferred.
But in practice, something gets lost.
At Assai, we have been part of these transitions for over three decades. We have seen documents handed over on USBs or shared drives with thousands of files, each carrying its own naming logic. We have spoken to operations teams who spent weeks searching for the right drawing, only to learn it was not the latest version. We have worked with maintenance leads who could not rely on the systems left behind. What they all experienced was the same structural gap: what we call the ‘handover gap’.
We have seen engineers rely on local copies just to stay productive. Field teams work from conflicting versions because they cannot trace which document is current. That is not a documentation problem, it is an operational vulnerability.
This is not about intent or capability. It is about approach. When handover is treated as an endpoint rather than a transition, information starts to drift. And when trust in documentation fades, every decision downstream takes longer, carries more risk, or relies on assumption.
Why the Handover Gap Happens
The formalities of handover are usually met: closeout packages are assembled, documents are marked as final, and ownership shifts. But much of this remains focused on delivery, not usability.
Control structures – the workflows, audit trails, naming conventions, and versioning – are often locked within the project context. Once those systems, such as project-specific document control tools, temporary collaboration platforms, or non-standard naming conventions and versioning practices, are switched off, the continuity disappears with them. Documents are archived, not managed. Metadata is stripped. And over time, the operational environment becomes disconnected from the true, documented configuration of the asset, leading to gaps between what is recorded and what exists in practice.
Frameworks like CFIHOS offer clear guidance on what good information handover should look like. Even with strong standards in place, continuity depends on how well that structure is sustained in daily operations. This is where systems such as Assai provide value, by ensuring that control, traceability, and usability continue beyond the project phase and into long-term asset management.
The Cost of Disconnection
When document control ends at handover, the gaps show up in the work.
Field teams rely on memory instead of documentation. Maintenance loses confidence in design intent. Audits become last-minute recoveries. Every team spends more time checking, verifying, or asking for clarity instead of acting. In some cases, safety risks may increase.
This erosion of trust does not happen overnight. It is a slow breakdown, where good teams are forced into inefficient behaviours because the structure no longer supports them.
What Continuity Looks Like in Practice
We have seen that continuity is not about holding onto every system. It is about carrying forward the right level of structure. The organizations that do this well focus on three things:
First, they make relevant project-phase systems available where needed, without relying on them entirely. Second, they maintain a shared source of truth, one that is accessible, searchable, and reliable. Third, they make documentation available in context: in the field, in reviews, and in compliance.
This approach does not simplify complexity. It structures it.
How Continuity Is Rebuilt
Ensuring continuity across project handover does not start with a tool, it starts with understanding how teams actually use information once the project is complete.
In our experience, continuity is rebuilt when structure is carried forward and adapted for operations. That means retaining version history, maintaining traceable ownership, and making access easy for operational teams without compromising control.
This often means rebuilding the same control structures used during the project, by carrying over document governance and metadata through systems like Assai. This ensures that structure stays active and accessible throughout operations and maintenance.
We have seen organizations succeed by rebuilding trust through structure, not just locating files, but re-establishing clarity, accountability, and operational relevance.
What to Consider
If you are preparing for a handover, or living with the effects of one, ask yourself:
• Do our operations teams trust the documentation they are using?
• Are we confident in what is current, what is approved, and what is out of date?
• Can we trace decisions and revisions from project through to present?
If the answer is unclear, the gap may already be there.
Continuity does not just depend on what gets handed over. It also depends on how well that structure fits into day-to-day operations. To be sustainable, it must align with how teams actually work. That is why leading organizations prioritize systems that integrate with operational platforms like SAP or Maximo, allowing teams to avoid manual workarounds. Even when transitions have not gone as planned, it is still possible to restore confidence, provided traceability and control are re-established early in the operational phase.
Final Thought
Industry frameworks like CFIHOS define what good handover looks like. But putting those standards into operational use takes more than definitions or checklists. It takes systems that enforce structure, traceability, and usability where it matters most.
That is why organizations turn to Assai: to carry control, clarity, and confidence from project closeout into long-term operations.
Because when teams trust the information they rely upon — guided by structured systems and standards like CFIHOS — performance is not a guess. It is a function of design.
If your team is preparing a handover, or already dealing with one, let us talk. Assai is built for exactly this.
