A municipal payroll system goes live, but without a transition plan HR keeps calling the project team for daily support. What closure gap does this expose?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Go-live without a handoff is like tossing someone the car keys with no owner's manual and then moving to another city. HR keeps dialing the project crew because operations never truly took the wheel.
Full Explanation
Transition to operations must be planned so business-as-usual ownership of support takes hold after go-live. When a municipal payroll system goes live but HR keeps calling the project team for daily support, the exposed gap is missing transition planning and unclear operational ownership. Saying the schedule baseline was too aggressive so go-live should be reversed indefinitely fails by concept: support thrash points to ownership handover failure, not an automatic need to reverse a successful technical go-live. Saying the risk register should have listed HR as a milestone instead of a stakeholder fails because HR is a stakeholder and operations partner, not a milestone, and that mislabel does not fix transition. Saying administrative closure forbids training operations staff before the project team disbands fails because training and handover are part of proper transition before the team releases. Exam caveat: CAPM closure and transition items stress operational readiness—go-live without a support model leaves the project team as de facto operations. Operational check: define an HR/IT operations support model, train named owners, set a hypercare window with exit criteria, and redirect tickets to the operations queue after handover acceptance.