17. ocp cfops.integration.guideline.2019.1

Document name:
CFOPS Integration Guideline
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm,J Wiklund,J Hedman
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Information classification:
Public
COROMATIC GROUP | Ranhammarsvägen 20, SE-168 67 Bromma, Sweden | TEL: 08-564 605 90 | FAX: 08-564 605 80
ORG.NR: 556741-2266 | info@coromatic.se | www.coromaticgroup.com
1 (26)
Integration of Processes and Governance structures
Guideline
for
OCP Critical Facilities Operations Framework (2019v1)

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
2 (26)
Table of Content
1 About this guideline.......................................................................................................4
1.1 CFOPS Framework and Process in scope.............................................................4
1.2 Recommended Border list for the process.............................................................4
2 Guideline: Integration of Processes and Governance structures............................6
2.1 Approve Statement of Work (SOW) .......................................................................6
2.2 Integrate processes and supply systems...............................................................8
3 Appendix: Transition minimizes integration risks...................................................11
3.1 Overview ...............................................................................................................11
3.1.1 Transition approach ..................................................................................11
3.1.2 Baseline commitments required for completion .......................................11
3.2 Scope the transition project ..................................................................................12
3.2.1 Process Maturity Assessment...................................................................12
3.2.2 Document Management Inventory............................................................13
Planned main deliverables before transition is completed...................................14
3.2.3 Draft planning of workstreams based on scoping ....................................15
3.3 Startup transition project.......................................................................................15
3.4 Discovery workshops: Processes & Supply Systems..........................................15
3.4.1 Intensive workshops per process in scope...............................................16
3.4.2 Intensive workshops per supply system category in scope .....................16
3.4.3 Detailed planning of workstreams based on discovery workshops .........17
3.5 Workstreams.........................................................................................................17
3.5.1 Workstream type: Transition Project Management ..................................18
3.5.2 Workstream type: Documentation ............................................................19
3.5.3 Workstream type: Processes being integrated.........................................20
3.5.4 Workstream type: Processes being established ......................................22
3.5.5 Workstream type: Other identified during scoping and discovery WS.....22
3.6 Handover...............................................................................................................23
3.6.1 Final sign-off..............................................................................................24
3.6.2 What happens now? .................................................................................24
4 Appendix: lessons learned from earlier transitions ................................................25
4.1 Top 3 pitfalls in Transition.....................................................................................25
4.2 Critical Success Factors during Transition...........................................................25
4.3 Critical Success Factors after Transition (= during Site Operations)...................26

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
3 (26)
Revisions
Version Date Author Approved Event
1.1. 2020-06-09 L Cardholm G Svensson Rev to match OCP CFOPSv1.4
1.0 2020-02-12 G Svensson
Approved after changing mgmt. to
management and some layout
changes i.e. page break changes.
0.3 2020-02-04 J Hedman, L Cardholm Second round of feedback
0.2 2020-01-28 J Hedman, L Cardholm Revised based on feedback
0.1 2019-06-12 J Wiklund First draft

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
4 (26)
1 About this guideline
It is based on the OCP CFOPS framework1
and current best practices identified by the
Operations community in delivering Site Management and Site Operations services.
The OCP CFOPS is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
International License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO
Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.
1.1 CFOPS Framework and Process in scope
 CFOPS Framework: OCP CFOPS Framework 2019 version 1.4
 Process in scope: Integration
1.2 Recommended Border list for the process
The general recommendation for the process border list follows below. However, the Site
Owner and the suppliers need to agree on site specific accountabilities and responsibilities
for the process and its sub-processes and activities.
Sub-process / Activity Site Owner
Site Management
Function
On-site Service
Providers
Approve Statementof Work / Asset Lists A R (demand) R (supply)
Approve Statementof Work / Border Lists A / R (supply) R (demand) R (supply)
Approve Statementof Work / Organization A / R (supply) R (demand) R (supply)
Approve Statementof Work / Terms & Conditions A R I
Integrate Processes & Site systems
/ Incident Management
A R R
/ Work Orders & Project Management
A R (demand) R (supply)
/ KPI Monitoring & Reporting
C A / R (demand) R (supply)
/ Lifecycle & Financial Management
A R C
/ Authenticate & Authorize Access
A R (demand) R (supply)
/ Customer or Site specific
To be Agreed
(TBA)
TBA TBA
The approach used for defining process accountabilityis the commonlyused RACImodel:
1 https://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Data_Center_Facility/CFOPS

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
5 (26)
 Responsible (also Recommender)
Those who do the work to achieve the task,delegation to assistin the work required is possible.
 Accountable (also Approver or final approving authority)
An accountable mustsign off(approve) work that responsible provides.There mustbe only one
accountable specified for each task or deliverable.
 Consulted (sometimes Consultantor counsel)
Those whose opinions are sought,typically subjectmatter experts; and with whom there is two-way
communication.
 Informed (also Informee)
Those who are kept up-to-date on progress,often only on completion ofthe task or deliverable;and with
whom there is justone-way communication.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
6 (26)
2 Guideline:Integrationof Processes and Governancestructures
Description of process in Framework:
The delivery requires integration of the parties’ processes and governance structures to
minimize risks and to secure continuous improvements.
The integrated processes for a site should include at least the following:
 Incident management and Business Continuity Planning (BCP)
 Lifecycle & Financial Management
 KPI Monitoring & Reporting
 Work Orders and Project Management (Service Requests and Change Requests)
 Authentication and authorization procedures for On-site Access
When establishing clear governance escalation mandates and protocols, the operational
level teams are empowered to manage day-to-day matters whether it concerns risk, quality,
environment, or compliance in other areas.
This includes clearly defined service levels and penalties for non-performance which enables
the parties to plan and know what to expect in the contractual relationship.
2.1 Approve Statement of Work (SOW)
A statement of work (SOW) is a document routinely employed in the field. It defines specific
activities, deliverables and timelines for a vendor providing services to the client.
The SOW typically includes detailed requirements and pricing, with governance terms and
practical appendices, e.g. border list and asset list. It is often supported by a master service
agreement or general Terms & Conditions.
 The starting point should be the current site strategy set by the customer.
 The SOW clarifies what services are included in the baseline and what services are
available via separate service requests.
 Services should be described clearly and be understood by the parties.
 It should include KPIs for measuring service levels.
 Both parties should understand what a “successful” service delivery looks like and
what penalties apply in cases of failure.
The SOW should be written with the agreed underlying terms and conditions in mind.
Agreeing the underlying terms and conditions beforehand helps avoid conflicts when
negotiating the SOW or interpreting its intentions later on.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
7 (26)
2.1.1.1 Key outputs
Typical outputs would include the following:
Output Comment
Statement of Work incl.
service levels with penalties
for Site Services (SOW with
SLA)
This is the main documentclarifying scope and expectations for the Services
Agreement.
The SOW has a focus on services and technologies in scope,butalso
covers other topics,e.g. pricing,duration.It can cover anything from pure
play Site Managementto a full-blown Site Operations – or anything in
between.
Service levels are defined to ensure a proper prioritization of efforts. These
should reflectthe Site Strategy to ensure alignmentwith customer needs.
The service levels to be managed can be any combination ofKPIs and they
may address the commitments byCoromatic or by other stakeholders,
depending on roles and responsibilities.
The SOW should have appendices or refer to separate documentation for
Border Lists,AssetLists,Service Levels, Organization (demand and supply)
and refer to what Terms & Conditions apply.
It is approved by both the Customer and Coromatic and handled through the
DocumentManagement.It is stored in the Reference Library (“Agreements
incl. Border lists”).
Asset Lists for in-scope site
supplysystems (AL)
CurrentAsset Lists for in-scope supplysystems should be produced and
validated by both parties to ensure itmatches the planned scope ofthe
SOW and to minimize risks ofstakeholder expectation gaps .
It is handled through the DocumentManagementprocess and stored in the
Reference Library (“Assetlists incl.EOL”).
Border Lists for in-scope site
services (BL)
CurrentBorder Lists for in-scope services should be produced and validated
by both parties to ensure it matches the planned scope ofthe SOW and to
minimize risks ofstakeholder expectation gaps.
Reference Library (“Agreements incl.Border lists”).
Organization with roles,
meeting frequencies and
templates etc.
This is part of the DocumentManagementrepositoryfor Site Policies,where
Organization including third party stakeholder dependencies are used to
capture demand and supplyof services via an operating model and a
governance model.
Site Policies (“Organization”).
Terms & Conditions that
regulate the SOW (T&C)
The SOW relies on being partof a larger context. This could be generally
accepted standard agreementin the market,e.g. NU15, or directly
negotiated terms and conditions between the parties (with or without an
underlying Framework Agreement).
Reference Library (“Agreements incl.Border lists”).

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
8 (26)
Furthermore:
 Affected processes should be aligned with the requirements, e.g. Service Level
Management or Team & Suppliers management
 Reference List of amendments or formal comments, e.g. minutes of meetings
 List of missing information with meta data stating by/from/when requested and
due/status/next step, etc.
2.1.1.2 Key Performance Indicators
To validate that the SOW and related materials have been approved, a KPI is used showing
the review and approval cycle is completed.
The process Monitoring and reporting, sub-process "Quality" is used for KPI follow-up.
2.2 Integrate processes and supply systems
The starting point should be the current site strategy set by the customer.
2.2.1.1 Key outputs
Typical outputs would include the following:
Output Comment
Incident Management It is critical that IncidentManagementis handled correctlybetween all involved
stakeholders,including third parties.
Work Orders & Project
Management
To ensure that Border Listaccountabilities are fulfilled bythe process to order
and approve site works it needs to be integrated and documented between the
stakeholders involved.
Monitoring & Reporting
with standard KPIreports
The process and its supporting systems (automated or manual) should be in
place to collect, share and report relevant data in a timely manner.
This also includes frequencyand contents for recurring operational level
meetings and reports
Lifecycle & Financial
Management
By ensuring that Site Systems Lifecycle Management,Financial Management
and Tender & Selection sub-processes are integrated between demand and
supply,the general costlevels and quality KPIs get identified.
Parts of Security & Access:
Authorize & Authenticate
for On-site Access
The activities of authentication and authorization should notbe confused when
integrating access control to sites in scope:
 Authorization is to decide who has permitto access to a site.(provided
by the customer)
 Authentication confirms a person’s identity
(provided by customer,Coromatic or a third party)
 Access to site is only allowed for authenticated authorized persons
(provided by customer,Coromatic or a third party)
Other access controls exist,e.g. againstitems notallowed on site,etc.
Supporting systems for
the processes
Site systems,e.g.technical alarms, and other systems required to enable the
processes.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
9 (26)

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
10 (26)
Furthermore:
 Affected processes and functions should be aligned accordingly, e.g. Service Desk,
technical alarm systems or Managed Operating Center.
 Reference List of amendments or formal comments, e.g. minutes of meetings
 List of missing information with meta data stating by/from/when requested and
due/status/next step, etc.
2.2.1.2 Key Performance Indicators
To validate that the processes have been approved, a KPI is used showing the review and
approval cycle is completed.
The process Monitoring and reporting, sub-process "Quality" is used for KPI follow-up.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
11 (26)
3 Appendix: Transition minimizesintegrationrisks
3.1 Overview
Transition is the process or a period of changing from one state or condition to another. For
a mission critical site, it is managed through a Transition Project.
There are at least two transitions during the lifecycle of a site; it is when the site is going
operational for the first time and when operations are shut down due to the site being
decommissioned.
The starting point should be the current site strategy set by the customer. The site strategy
aims to align the actual capabilities with future demands of users and owners; it is not
unusual with a life span of up to 30 years or more for a critical facility. During its initial
planning, it may have other capability targets and expectations than in later stages.
Demands for technical robustness, lowered environmental impact or even the desired level
of resilience can change during the site’s lifetime.
Transitions also occur when a site strategy is changed or the sourcing strategy for the site
demands new forms for organizing site operations, examples include going from in-house
site management to outsourcing that function, replacing a supplier of services with another
or insourcing site operations from a previously outsourced function. In some instances, team
members from the previous organization join a new supplier, while in other situations the
organizations are kept as-is.
3.1.1 Transition approach
During the transition phase, the customer and the supplier align and integrate their
processes, functions, systems and organizations to enable efficient operations.
To ensure minimized risks and transparency, the transition should be run as a clearly
defined project that is led and quality assured by highly skilled and experienced transition
specialists.
A typical approach for driving a Transition project is to break it into different work streams.
Best practice is to divide them based on type of deliverables, e.g. per process or per type of
site supply system.
3.1.2 Baseline commitments required for completion
Based on experience and best practice there a few ground rules needed to help drive a
successful transition:
1. Statement of Work (SOW) and SLA commitments agreed between the parties
2. Transition timeline; minimum 6 months
3. Expected resource dedication; both incumbent and new organization
4. No SLA penalties during Transition phase
Ensure sign-off by Transition Steering Group, where both customer and Coromatic are
represented according to DoA (Delegation of Authority)

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
12 (26)
3.2 Scope the transition project
The current processes setup, roles descriptions and documentation standards should be
mapped to OCP CFOPS Framework.
A desktop mapping approach can be used, i.e. by interviewing key persons on the status of
process documentation or technical systems. By adding a quick site visit instead of a full site
audit may be useful.
The desktop mapping approach provides quick identification of gaps in the current setup or
finds areas to be prioritized within the transition period. The alternative would be to make a
formal walk-through and TRR (Technical Risk Review) of sites in scope and a full mapping
of the required documentation.
Note: A Transition project will never close all gaps; some parts will have to be handled post-
transition by the site operations team.
3.2.1 Process Maturity Assessment
Regardless of which standard or best practice the site is operated under, it should include
the same (or equivalent) processes as defined in the OCP COPFS Framework.
By performing a risk-based process maturity assessment aligned with the OCP Framework
MindMap, the transition can be scoped and prioritized as follows:
 Scoping – what processes are included in Transition (if not all)
 Maturity – rate each process using Red-Amber-Green (sub-processes if possible)
 Accountabilities – identify Accountable and Responsible for each process
Illustrative example of a Process Maturity Mapping

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
13 (26)
3.2.2 Document Management Inventory
By using a Document Management Master List, the project will identify any missing materials
that would be expected in Site Policies or in the Reference Library that need to either be
created during Transition (in a later workstream) or be handled post-transition.
The status for each item fall into one of the following categories:
 Missing – decide if to be created during transition or post-transition
 Obsolete – decide if to be reviewed and approved during transition or post-transition
 Draft – decide if to be reviewed and approved during transition or post-transition
 Approved – move to post-transition
Illustrative example of a Document Management Master List Template

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
14 (26)
Planned main deliverables before transition is completed
Area Main deliverables
Document  Site Policies & Reference Library in defined common repositories
 Full Border List where stakeholders, responsibilities and dependencies
are confirmed
 Asset List that is complete, up-to-date and signed-off
 Site Configuration Procedures
 Document Management Master List for post-transition handling
Integrate  Incident Management
 Lifecycle & Financial Management
 Monitoring & Reporting with standard KPI reports
 Work Orders & Project Management
 Authenticate & Authorize Access
 Other identified Customer and Site-specific processes
Establish  Service Level Management
 Team & Suppliers Management
 Operating model with roles, meeting frequencies and templates etc.
A risk assessment should be performed. This may identify more processes or specific supply
systems that will need to be refurbished, upgraded or replaced during the transition period.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
15 (26)
3.2.3 Draft planning of workstreams based on scoping
Based on the initial scoping a high-level timeline and resource estimations can be made to
meet prioritizations and identified issues.
Illustrative example of workstream plans
3.3 Startup transition project
The startup phase begins with planning the project considering its constraints and
opportunities.
Minimum aspects to consider in planning:
 Timeline with Milestones and Steering Group meetings
 List of Deliverables, with due dates, responsible and acceptance criteria
 Project collaboration platform
 Repository for handover of results
 Scheduling of project resources with roles and responsibilities
 Quality Management
Note! Do not miss out on the acceptance criteria clarifying when a deliverable is transitioned
After the planning is complete, the project kicks-off with team meetings to ensure all are on
the same page regarding timeline, expected outcomes, potential risks or other issues.
3.4 Discovery workshops: Processes & Supply Systems
By leveraging the initial scoping, maturity reviews and document management master list the
project will break into workshops to deep-dive and confirm status.
The result of a workshop should be a transparent common view of current state and
mitigations to be performed during transition and post-transition.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
16 (26)
3.4.1 Intensive workshops per process in scope
A suggested split-up is to hold workshops based on what is in scope to properly understand
current state and proposed future state:
 Process flowcharts, descriptions or procedures
 Required supporting tools and technologies
 Roles and responsibilities
 Process KPIs
 Known issues or gaps
 What to mitigate to meet acceptance criteria and what is left for post-transition work
3.4.2 Intensive workshops per supply system category in scope
A suggested split-up is to hold workshops based on what is in scope to properly understand
current state and proposed future state:
 Which supply system category2
 Which supply system (customer specific category or components in scope for WS)
 As-built drawings or system descriptions
 Configuration Procedures for normal operating conditions
 Key dependencies (people, process or technology)
 What systems or processes are supported by this system
 Technical Risk Review or operating condition
 Known issues or gaps
 What to mitigate to meet acceptance criteria and what is left for post-transition work
2 OCP CFOPS and EN 50600: Building Construction, Power distribution, Environmental control,
Telecom Cabling infrastructure, Security Systems

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
17 (26)
3.4.3 Detailed planning of workstreams based on discovery workshops
Based on the findings during the discovery workshops, timeline and resources may have to
be adjusted to ensure handling of such identified issues or to meet re-prioritizations made by
the steering group compared to the initial scope.
Illustrative example of refined workstream plans
3.5 Workstreams
Workstreams are run in parallel to be time-efficient and to meet short deadlines. Some
workstreams will rely on the same key persons as other workstreams and this needs to be
coordinated by the Project management function for the transition.
Each workstream should have a workstream leader that reports progress, reports time and
costs spent, identified issues and risks for handling by the project management function
(potentially to be escalated to the steering group).

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
18 (26)
3.5.1 Workstream type: Transition Project Management
The project management function needs to ensure that all deliverables are produced on time
and with the agreed quality. It also controls that out-of-scope materials or efforts are not
pushed into the transition project.
Minimum aspects to consider:
 Progress vs. Timeline with Milestones and Steering Group meetings
 Status List of Deliverables vs. due dates, responsible and acceptance criteria
 Efficient Project collaboration platform
 Effective Repository for handover of results
 Resource use vs. scheduling of project resources with roles and responsibilities
 Quality Management

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
19 (26)
3.5.2 Workstream type: Documentation
The following table shows expected minimum baseline of documentation to be in place when
transition is complete.
Deliverable to handover Comment
Asset List that is complete,
up-to-date and signed-off
One or several expert technicians perform professional
walk-throughs of the sites in scope to validate the Asset List
and make a Technical Risk Review (TRR). This is
performed to ensure that technical risks are noted and
reported to the site owner in the form of operating condition
for assets in scope.
The report includes recommendations and possible ways to
mitigate the risks. By performing a TRR a rating for each
asset a prioritization of supply systems to be upgraded or
replaced during Transition and which are to be handled
through the regular Lifecycle & Financial Management
process.
Site Configuration
Procedures for assets in
scope
The supply systems and their components are designed for
specific operating conditions and requires specific
configurations to be fully efficient and effective.
Site Configuration Procedures (SCP) describe and
document the normal configuration of the site, which sets
up the initial conditions for the execution of any SOP or
MEST.
Full Border List where
stakeholders,
responsibilities and
dependencies are
confirmed
The Border List should follow the RACI model for each
process and sub-process / activity to ensure minimum
expectation gap between stakeholders
Document Management
Master List for post-
transition handling
This shows what documentation is collected and validated,
and what documentation is missing. It contains review
cycles, accountable for its preparation and related meta
data to enable continuous improvements post-transition
Any other “in scope
documentation”
Other documentation identified as “in scope” and that is
missing or is confirmed inaccurate, e.g. Site strategy, On-
site work rules, As-built drawings, Agreements, Site
Configurations Procedures etc.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
20 (26)
3.5.3 Workstream type: Processes being integrated
The following table shows expected minimum baseline of processes to be integrated
between customer and supplier when transition is complete.
Incident Management It is critical that Incident Management is handled correctly
between all involved stakeholders, including third parties.
This process can be initiated from the customer as well as
from the supplier or a third party. Regardless of which,
organizational charts and contact lists need to be relevant
and up-to-date for Governance and escalations to work.
Lifecycle & Financial
Management
By ensuring that (at a minimum) site systems lifecycle
management and financial management are integrated
between demand and supply, it is secured that the general
cost level expectations for the post-transition period are
clarified and aligned with the Site Strategy.
Monitoring & Reporting
with standard KPI reports
It may be enough to monitor KPIs to measure SLA
fulfillment or there may be an identified need for measuring
other KPIs as well.
Regardless of which the process and its supporting
systems should be in place to collect, share and report
relevant data in a timely manner.
WO & Project
Management
A customer normally has its own Service Management
System (ITSM or CAFM) to control management of
customer equipment, while the site operations team and its
suppliers may be running on separate platforms to manage
the site supply systems (CAFM).
To ensure that Border List accountabilities are fulfilled by
the process to order and approve site works it needs to be
integrated and documented between the stakeholders
involved.
Parts of access control:
Authenticate & Authorize
Access
The activities of authentication and authorization should not
be confused:
 To authorize means to approve someone to be
allowed access to the site in scope. This may
require a specific security clearance or an on-site
training etc.
 When someone wants to gain access to a site, they
typically need to show some proof of identification.
The act of authenticating is to validate that the
person is who it claims to be.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
21 (26)
The access control process also includes validating that the
person is currently authorized to gain entry (they may have
been authorized before, but it may have been withdrawn)
Other access controls exist, e.g. against items not allowed
on site, etc.
processes”
missing or is confirmed inaccurate, e.g. As-built drawings,
Agreements, Site Configurations Procedures etc.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
22 (26)
3.5.4 Workstream type: Processes being established
The following table shows expected minimum baseline of processes to be in place when
transition is complete.
Service Level
Management
This process ensures that the Border List is upheld and
managed. The purpose is to offer clarity on Service Levels
committed by one or several suppliers and to Assess
performance accordingly.
The SLAs should be supported by monitoring of relevant
KPIs to ensure ability to measure compliance.
SLA breaches trigger demand for penalty payments
according to agreement or SOW and these need to be
assessed, calculated and reported.
Near breach management is important, as this identifies
learnings from near-misses and risks before they trigger
SLA penalties. It is always more beneficial for all
stakeholders if no SLA breaches occur. Near breaches may
trigger problem management or other processes to help
improve current state.
Team& Suppliers
management with annual
plan for Site Operations
An annual plan for Site Operations; plans for the site
management function and on-site services (incl. PPM) that
considers other stakeholder requirements, e.g. external
audits or regulatory reporting should be approved before
end of transition.
The plans should cover the post-transition period and be
ready to fall into an annual overall plan for site operations
that matches lifecycle & financial management.
A baseline SOP for monthly Site Management process
activities, e.g. Monitoring & Reporting should be presented.
processes”
missing or is confirmed inaccurate, e.g. As-built drawings,
Agreements, Site Configurations Procedures etc.
3.5.5 Workstream type: Other identified during scoping and discovery WS
Please consider that during scoping and the intensive discovery workshops there may be
other types of workstreams identified to enable an effective transition.
The most commonly integrated systems range from technical monitoring to physical access
controls and security systems. Technical site monitoring is typically based on the underlying
site infrastructure that communicate through standardized protocols, e.g. SNMP or ModBus.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
23 (26)
3.6 Handover
Unless the transition is for starting up a new site, there is a pre-existing organization (in-
house or outsourced) that currently provides the site operations services.
During transition, the team that will manage the site after transition will be part of the
transition team. This helps them to:
 Be informed of new or changed SLA commitments
 Learn new or changed processes and procedures
 Be informed of new or changed border lists
 Be trained by experienced team members in managing the site
 Better understand the site and its supply systems
An optimal approach, which is not always feasible, is to start the transition while the pre-
existing team continue their site operations in parallel. That way their knowledge and
expertise can be leveraged in the discovery workshops with a low level of increased risks to
the site.
As the transition progresses, deliverables are approved and handed over from the transition
project team to the new site operations team. At the end of the project, the new team
manages the site according to the SOW and border list, while the pre-existing site operations
team and transition project team is stand-by and only support in cases of emergency.
Illustrative example of gradual handover to new site operations team during transition period
Through the risk-based transition methodology the parties have agreed what deliverables
the transition should result in and what acceptance criteria should be applied for each
deliverable. In case of uncertainties or conflicts, these need to be escalated and resolved in
the steering group.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
24 (26)
3.6.1 Final sign-off
The Steering Group represents the customer and Coromatic and has representatives from
both parties. When the steering group approves the transition project as completed it is
formally closed and the handover to site operations is complete.
Note! It is expected that there is a list of post-transition activities for the new site operations
team to complete.
3.6.2 What happens now?
It is expected that there is a list of post-transition activities to complete. These should be
planned, executed and followed-up as part of the overall site operations plan.
In case of improvements to existing materials, the Plan-Do-Study-Act principles are
recommended to be used.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
25 (26)
4 Appendix:lessonslearned from earlier transitions
These are some of the most important lessons learned by Coromatic 2016-2019.
4.1 Top 3 pitfalls in Transition
1. Under-estimating complexity of Transition
 Scope and border lists
 Timeline and costs
2. Over-estimating current state quality
 Up-to-date documentation of site and assets (Technology)
 Up-to-date documentation of processes (Processes)
 Clarity of governance, organization and competencies (People)
3. Under-estimating governance over time
 Ensuring a relevant demand organization stays in place, while managing TUPE3
 Plan for 3-10 years mutual commitment, minimum 3 years
4.2 Critical Success Factors during Transition
1. Customer must be willing to invest in transition
 Secure true stakeholder commitment
 Close collaboration between parties – full transparency under NDA
2. Plan based on actual current state, not “expected current state”
 Risk-based approach for prioritization of processes and activities – be honest!
 Weekly updates and risk/issue resolution meetings
3. Use expert knowledge to minimize risk
 Transition Manager skilled in Transition and Operations
 Keep experience and site knowledge in handover
4. Allow for time – but be fierce on meeting deadlines
 1-3 months to plan (up to 10 sites and takeover of employees)
 3-9 months to execute (up to 10 sites and takeover of employees)
3 Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
26 (26)
4.3 Critical Success Factors after Transition (= during Site Operations)
1. Clarity of agreement
 Agreement period (and what happens then?)
 SLAs with penalties
 Scope with clarified border lists – consider additional benefits, e.g. audit and
compliance
 Governance and Change Management defined
2. Skilled team members
 Certified in Site Management and Critical Facilities (ITIL, FM, Quality and Risk)4
 English and local language (verbal and written communications)
 Rotation between sites/customers to ensure knowledge-sharing and continuous
improvements
3. Site Management is a function – not headcount
 Primary Site Manager and Contract Manager to enable continuity
 Rotation of site managers between sites and customers to minimize key person
dependencies
 Proactively bring in other expertise to improve site performance based on
business case for customer
4 Security clearance or specific site training,where required

17. ocp cfops.integration.guideline.2019.1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 17. ocp cfops.integration.guideline.2019.1

Similar to 17. ocp cfops.integration.guideline.2019.1 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

17. ocp cfops.integration.guideline.2019.1