This succession planning template connects a critical role to the evidence still needed, the development opportunities worth discussing, and the continuity questions nobody has resolved yet. The filled example keeps those decisions separate from an appointment.
Describe the work that needs continuity
The original fictional example concerns a community archive's collection coordination lead. Its planning scope has three parts: coordinate intake handoffs, follow a documented exception route with the authorized owner, and lead a volunteer briefing. The actual role criteria and decision authority remain to confirm. There is no supplied vacancy date, and the current holder is not assumed to be leaving.
| Critical responsibility | Evidence a future review would need | Continuity question |
|---|---|---|
| Coordinate intake handoffs | An observed coordination exercise showing the sequence, people to consult, and unresolved items. | Who can keep the handoff process understandable if the role changes hands? |
| Handle the documented exception route | A walkthrough that identifies the exception, preserves the record, and refers the decision to its authorized owner. | Are the route and approval boundary documented well enough for someone else to follow? |
| Lead a volunteer briefing | A practice briefing with an observed purpose, clear next actions, and a response to a clarification question. | Who can explain the process while staying within the role's authority? |
These are proposed review questions for this exercise. Agree the actual criteria with the people responsible for the role before assessing anyone against them.
CIPD's succession-planning factsheet starts with business-critical roles and discusses practical experience tailored to future responsibilities. It also calls for objective review and attention to people's career choices. Use those principles to ask what the organization needs to prepare for, rather than treating a strong current performance record as an automatic successor designation.
Keep the evidence narrower than the conclusion
The sample has two fictional participants. They are examples for discussing the template, not real people under assessment.
| Participant | Supplied evidence and interest | What remains unknown |
|---|---|---|
| A | E1: completed a routine intake handoff with support. Interest in exploring coordination is supplied for the example. | No demonstration of coordinating the full process, handling the exception route, or leading a briefing. Development participation has not been agreed. |
| B | E2: produced accurate catalog notes. | Interest has not been discussed. No coordination, exception-route, or briefing demonstration is supplied. |
Select Routine work evidence in the example to inspect E1 and E2. Then select Full role preparation. The role requirements stay visible, but neither evidence item establishes readiness for the whole role. E1 concerns supported handoff work; E2 concerns catalog notes.
A needs a conversation about a suitable practice opportunity and support. B first needs a conversation about interest. Giving both people the same development assignment would skip a different unanswered question for each.
Choose a preparation route without promising the role
For A, the proposed route is a staged briefing practice and a walkthrough of the documented exception route. Confirm interest, available time, a reviewer, appropriate practice materials, and permission before scheduling either activity. The reviewer should observe the work against the agreed criteria; completing the activity alone does not settle readiness.
For B, ask whether coordination work fits their interests before proposing role-specific development. Accurate catalog notes remain useful evidence for the task they demonstrate. They do not supply a preference for a different career direction.
Select a responsibility in the example to see its required work beside the supplied evidence and missing demonstration. Proposed development then shows the next conversation or practice separately from accepted participation. Keep the reviewer role and next review arrangement open until someone actually agrees to them.
An internal development route is only one part of continuity preparation. The organization may also need a clearer handover, support from another role, or an external recruitment route. Record those as options to investigate, with an owner to confirm. Do not mark the continuity gap closed because two names appear in the plan.
Review the criteria before reviewing people
A phrase such as “handles exceptions” can hide different expectations. In this example, the proposed capability is to recognize a documented exception, preserve its record, and consult the authorized decision owner. It does not grant the person authority to approve the exception.
For a role-only template discussion, put that distinction beside the practice question in a fictional HTML copy in your NOS workspace. HR and operations can inspect the same wording and clarify the static criterion before using it in their approved review process. Keep real participant identities, private assessments, and succession decisions in the organization's confidential records.
A revised criterion changes the template; it does not change anybody's readiness or appoint them. Bring the agreed wording back into the maintained process, then arrange the evidence review with the people involved.
Copy a prompt for a role-first succession plan
Create one complete HTML succession-planning review template.
Critical role and why its work needs continuity: [PASTE]
Future responsibilities and actual authority boundaries: [PASTE]
Agreed review criteria for each responsibility: [PASTE]
Permitted, nonconfidential evidence and participant interests: [PASTE]
Proposed development opportunities and available support: [PASTE]
Other continuity options, reviewers and arrangements: [PASTE]
Begin with the role's future work. Connect each responsibility to
the evidence supplied, missing evidence and a proposed next step.
Keep current task performance, future-role preparation, expressed
interest, agreed participation and appointment decisions separate.
Do not invent readiness, dates, agreement, authority or vacancies.
Include this original fictional community-archive example:
Role: collection coordination lead. Proposed scope: coordinate
intake handoffs; follow a documented exception route with its
authorized owner; lead a volunteer briefing. Actual role criteria
and authority TO CONFIRM. Vacancy date unknown; do not assume the
current holder is leaving.
A: E1 routine intake handoff completed with support. Interest in
exploring coordination is supplied. No full-process coordination,
exception-route or briefing demonstration. Participation not agreed.
B: E2 accurate catalog notes. Interest not discussed. No supplied
coordination, exception-route or briefing demonstration.
Proposed A route: discuss a staged supported briefing practice and
an exception-route walkthrough. Confirm interest, time, reviewer,
materials and permission before scheduling. Proposed B next step:
discuss interest before offering role-specific development.
No evidence establishes either person's readiness for the full role.
Review questions: can the person explain the intake sequence,
people to consult and unresolved items? Can they recognize and
record an exception and refer its decision to the authorized owner?
Can they brief volunteers with purpose, next actions and a response
to a clarification question? These criteria are proposed, not policy.
Provide Routine work evidence and Full role preparation views;
selecting a responsibility must show its requirement, E1/E2 scope,
unknowns and review role. Proposed development must distinguish a
suggestion from accepted participation. Show handover documentation,
other-role support and external recruitment as options TO INVESTIGATE,
not decisions already made. Continuity remains unresolved.
Include a separate blank role-only planning scaffold and temporary
review questions. Preserve typing across views; confirm before reset.
No employee ranking, high-potential labels, readiness percentages,
automatic successor selection, appointment promises or private HR
storage. Label fictional evidence clearly. At least 16px body text,
labeled native controls, visible focus and stacked records at 360px
without horizontal page scrolling. Inline CSS/JavaScript; no external
assets, network or storage. State notes last only in this open page.
Return full HTML.
Read the generated full-role view against E1 and E2. It should preserve what each record actually supports and leave the other capabilities unresolved. If a view turns accurate catalog notes into coordination readiness, correct that inference before discussing development.
Leave the next review with a specific question
For A, the next question is whether a supported practice opportunity is suitable and feasible, then what the reviewer would need to observe. For B, it is whether they want to explore this work at all. Neither question requires deciding an appointment now.
Name who will confirm the role criteria, who will discuss the proposed opportunities, and when the unresolved continuity options will return for review. The plan becomes useful when those questions have owners and an agreed next check.