The position is not the knowledge
Naming a successor settles the org chart. It does not settle the fact that the person leaving was the only one who could calibrate the spectrometer or negotiate with a long-standing supplier. The succession plan must therefore list knowledge, not functions.
Building the plan in four lists
Who leaves, and when
Planned retirements over five years, person by person. On the demonstration: 161 departures, ranked by what they take away.
What leaves with them
For each departure, the knowledge where the person is the single holder or one of two. Those are the transfers to organise urgently.
Who can take over
The decision board proposes a successor: close in skills, in the same structure when possible, with the number of pieces of knowledge to bring up to level and the estimated ramp-up time.
What is missing
When no internal successor exists, the recruitment need is created from the knowledge at risk, and external CVs are compared against the same knowledge.
Succession is ready when it is measured
An action plan sets the pair and the deadline. The internal academy carries the training, level by level, each level validated by a test. Risk only drops once the successor is assessed at the required level: never because a box was ticked.
For the executive committee
An exportable report: retirement wave, urgent transfers, health of the base, with a plain-language interpretation in the reader's language.
To build a succession plan on sound foundations, the set-up order matters: building a knowledge management system from scratch.