Path 06Lesson 4 / 6

Verify an exit before you depend on a service

Separate source-code ownership from operational portability. Test exports, independent builds, infrastructure access, and the evidence needed for a transition.

Practitioner10 minReviewed

Published by How we write

What you will learn

  • Identify the assets and rights needed to operate without a supplier.
  • Design a small exit exercise before a critical dependency develops.
  • Separate export, transition, and deletion decisions.

Define what must remain usable

Source-code ownership is valuable. It is only one part of an exit plan.

Consider a fictional application whose source is in the company’s repository. The build downloads a private package from the supplier. Production uses a supplier-owned cloud account. Nobody has recorded the database restore procedure.

The company has the code but cannot yet operate the service independently. Its exit plan must cover rights, assets, access, and knowledge together.

Inventory the dependencies

Asset or responsibilityExit question
Code and historyCan the next team access the complete repository?
Packages and licensesCan it obtain and use every required dependency?
Data and schemasCan it restore usable records with relationships intact?
Infrastructure and configurationCan it recreate the environment and required settings?
Identities and secretsWho creates replacement credentials and controls access?
DNS and certificatesWho can move the public endpoint?
Evidence and operationsWhich decisions, runbooks, tests, and incident records remain available?

Check export formats and scope. A readable document export does not necessarily preserve every relationship, attachment, or execution record. Request a sample and inspect it with the people who would use it.

Run an independent rebuild

Use a safe test environment and approved example data. Give an authorized engineer the proposed handover package. Ask them to build the application, apply configuration, restore the data, and verify one complete business operation.

Record each missing item and how long it takes to obtain. Avoid silently supplying undocumented knowledge during the exercise. The purpose is to find what the next team would lack.

Then examine transition constraints: overlapping subscriptions, data transfer time, package access, identity changes, and support availability. Include these costs in the build-versus-buy comparison.

Separate export from deletion

Export produces a copy. Transition changes who operates the service. Deletion removes specified records under the agreed process. These are separate decisions with different evidence.

Define the required retention and deletion scope with the relevant owners. Confirm the supplier’s current terms and procedures. Do not delete the only usable recovery copy before the receiving system has been verified.

Taiga documents an administrative export process and a separate erasure process. Secret values are excluded from the export. Your handover therefore needs an authorized way to recreate required secrets. Verify the current export contents against your transition needs; do not assume it is a complete application backup.

Decide which dependencies are acceptable

Portability does not require removing every managed service. A dependency can be a reasonable choice when its value, constraints, and transition path are understood.

Record the accepted dependencies, an owner, and a review trigger. Repeat the exit exercise after a material architecture or contract change. Continue with an adoption plan that includes these responsibilities from the start.

Do the exercise

A fictional supplier gives you a Git repository and a database export. List five other items you need to run the application independently. Choose one item and describe a test that would reveal a missing dependency.

Download worksheet (Markdown)

Check your understanding

Your organization owns the source code. What additional evidence supports operational portability?

Sources & further reading

Related reading from Taiga