The challenge starts with the exit date itself. Timelines are negotiated as part of the transaction, shaped by commercial, legal and financial considerations. By the time delivery teams inherit the programme, the date is already fixed. What is far less certain is how much work it will actually take to hit it. Whether twelve months is realistic depends on the complexity of the separation, the extent of shared systems and processes, and the number of dependencies that need to be unwound, and those details are rarely understood in full when the agreement is signed.

As the work progresses, separation turns out to be more than moving data or switching systems. Many carve-outs involve functions, processes and technologies that were never designed to operate independently. Dependencies that were invisible inside the parent organisation become critical. Data needs to be extracted, cleansed and migrated. New reporting capability needs to be established. Policies, controls and compliance responsibilities that previously sat within a central function need a clear home in the new organisation. Each activity looks manageable in isolation. They are rarely independent of one another, and progress in one area depends on decisions being made elsewhere.

The real pressure is not usually unexpected technical complexity. It is the business and operational dependencies that only become visible once teams start working through the practical reality of separation. Questions of ownership, governance, operating model design and future ways of working quickly become the true critical path. By the final months of a TSA, the remaining challenges are less about technology and more about decision-making.

There is also a financial incentive to exit on time. Remaining on inherited services comes at a cost, and that cost becomes more visible as the end date approaches. The result can be a focus on hitting the deadline even when the underlying foundations are not yet in place. It is entirely possible to exit a TSA on schedule and still face significant operational challenges afterwards. Independence on paper and operational readiness are not always the same thing.

There is a further risk in how the TSA period gets treated. Because it has a fixed end date, it can be seen as temporary, and temporary arrangements rarely attract the same attention as long-term investments. A twelve or eighteen-month TSA is a significant period in the life of a business. It is long enough to establish new capabilities, embed processes and build a sustainable operating model. It is equally long enough to defer difficult decisions until they become urgent.

The organisations that navigate TSAs well treat them as delivery programmes in their own right. They establish ownership early, understand the dependencies behind each workstream and work backwards from the exit date with a realistic view of what needs to be achieved. They focus not only on when support will end, but on what the organisation must be capable of doing when it does.

A TSA should never be treated as a grace period between transaction close and independence. It is the period during which independence is built. The exit date is agreed by people who will never be responsible for delivering against it. The outcome depends on how effectively the operational teams turn that deadline into a structured and achievable plan.