A new automated control will replace a manual authorisation step in a high-volume order pipeline at go-live. The risk practitioner wants the implementation itself to avoid halting order processing if the new control behaves unexpectedly on the first day. Which implementation arrangement best manages this go-live risk?
- ARun the new control in parallel with the retained manual step and keep a tested rollback path until it is confirmed stable Correct
- BSwitch the entire pipeline to the new automated control overnight so that all orders are covered by it from the first business day
- CDefer the new control until the manual step has been fully decommissioned and the responsible staff have been reassigned elsewhere
- DEnable the new control only for the largest customers first because their orders justify the closest monitoring during go-live
Why A is correct: Running the new control alongside the existing one with a tested rollback lets processing continue if the new control fails, which is the safest way to manage go-live disruption risk.
Why B is wrong: A clean overnight cutover is simplest to coordinate, but it leaves no fallback if the new control misbehaves, so a first-day fault could halt the whole order pipeline.
Why C is wrong: Removing the manual step first feels tidy, but it destroys the very fallback that would protect processing during the risky early period of the new control.
Why D is wrong: Targeting the biggest customers concentrates rather than reduces exposure, since any first-day fault would then strike the most important orders without a fallback in place.