Evolving data privacy laws requiring additional security controls

Exchange rate fluctuations affecting international vendor costs

Significant user resistance to new systems and processes

Incomplete documentation for legacy systems complicating migration

Stakeholder pressure to accelerate timeline by 2 months

New regulations may not be fully addressed in current design

Current spending trajectory indicates potential budget overrun

Delays in finalizing contracts with new service providers

Critical third-party API scheduled for deprecation during migration period

Key technical resources may be unavailable during critical phases

DR capabilities during transition period below acceptable RTO/RPO

Limited time for UAT may result in undetected defects in production

Heavy dependency on single cloud provider may limit flexibility and increase costs

Integration with legacy systems more complex than anticipated, causing delays

New data residency requirements may not be met by current cloud architecture

Planned cutover window may be too short for complex migration activities

User resistance to new system may impact adoption and ROI

Project costs trending 15% over budget due to scope creep

Critical third-party API scheduled for deprecation during migration window

Data migration may expose sensitive IP to third-party contractors

Inability to exit TSAs on schedule may result in extended costs and delayed operational independence.

Critical APIs from legacy ERP system may not integrate properly with new infrastructure, causing data synchronization issues and business disruption.

Large-scale data migration from multiple source systems poses risk of data corruption, loss, or inconsistency affecting business operations.

Insufficient network bandwidth between carved-out entity and parent company may impact TSA service delivery and business continuity.

Separation of IT systems creates new security perimeter with potential vulnerabilities during transition period.

Critical IT and business personnel may leave during carve-out transition, resulting in knowledge loss and operational disruption.

Transitional Service Agreements may not cover all required services or service levels may degrade during transition period.

Carved-out entity may lack complete end-to-end business processes currently provided by parent company shared services.

IT separation costs may significantly exceed budget due to unforeseen technical complexities and extended timelines.

Transitional service costs may increase beyond agreed rates due to scope creep or extended service periods.

Business disruption during carve-out may impact revenue generation and customer satisfaction.

Carved-out entity may not meet all regulatory requirements independently, particularly for data privacy and industry-specific regulations.

Data separation and migration activities may inadvertently violate GDPR, CCPA, or other data privacy regulations.

Critical vendor contracts may not be assignable to carved-out entity, requiring renegotiation or replacement.

Critical systems and processes may not be ready by target separation date, forcing delay or operating with gaps.

Insufficient time for UAT and performance testing.

Infrastructure delays blocking application deployment.

Pending regulatory changes may require system modifications.

Insufficient audit logging for regulatory requirements.

System may not fully comply with GDPR requirements.

International payments exposed to currency volatility.

Cloud provider announced 15% price increase.

Uncontrolled scope changes may cause budget overrun.

Lack of structured change management process.

Loss of critical team members with specialized knowledge.

End users may not be adequately trained on new system.

Critical security vulnerability in authentication library.

Insufficient network bandwidth may cause replication delays.

New cloud database may experience performance issues under production load.

Critical APIs from legacy ERP system may not support required data formats.