8. ocp cfops.document mgmt.guideline.2019.2

Document name:
CFOPS DocumentManagementGuideline
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
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 (30)
Document Management
Guideline
for
OCP Critical Facilities Operations Framework (2019v1)

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
2 (30)
Table of Content
1 About this guideline.......................................................................................................3
1.1 CFOPS Framework and Process in scope.............................................................3
1.2 Recommended Border list for the process.............................................................3
2 Guideline: Document Management..............................................................................5
2.1 Site Policies.............................................................................................................6
2.1.1 Site Strategy incl. Sourcing strategy for external suppliers........................6
2.1.2 Disaster Recovery Plan incl. Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP) ...9
2.1.3 Standard Operating Procedures for Site Management (SOP).................11
2.1.4 Cost Distribution Model.............................................................................13
2.1.5 On-site work rules .....................................................................................18
2.1.6 Organization, incl. third party dependencies ............................................19
2.2 Reference Library .................................................................................................20
2.2.1 Agreements incl. Border lists ....................................................................20
2.2.2 As-built drawings and studies ...................................................................22
2.2.3 Assets list for site systems, incl. End Of Life (EOL).................................23
2.2.4 Warranties, acceptance tests and regulatory compliance certificates .....24
2.2.5 Site Configuration Procedures, incl. Manuals and vendor instructions....25
2.2.6 Method Statements for on-site services (MEST)......................................27
2.2.7 Service records for on-site services..........................................................28
2.2.8 Meetings & Decisions records ..................................................................29
Revisions
Version Date Author Approved Event
1.1 2020-06-09 L Cardholm G Svensson Rev to match OCP CFOPSv1.4
1.0 2019-12-10 L Cardholm,J Hedman G Svensson approved
0.4 2019-11-25 L Cardholm Final draft
0.3 2019-11-20 L Cardholm included communityfeedback
0.2 2019-10-29 L Cardholm Clarified outputs and KPIs
0.1 2019-10-03 L Cardholm First draft

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
3 (30)
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: Document Management
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
Site Policies /Site Strategy incl. Sourcing A R I (per need)
Site Policies /DR Plan for site incl.EOP for Site Mgmt A R C
Site Policies /SOP for Site Mgmt C A / R I
Site Policies /CostDistribution Model A R I (per need)
Site Policies /On-site work rules A R I
Site Policies /Organization A / R (supply) R (demand) R (supply)
Reference Library / Agreements incl.Border Lists A / R (supply) R (demand) R (supply)I
Reference Library / As-built drawings/studies A R (demand) R (supply)
Reference Library / Asset lists incl.EOL A R (demand) R (supply)
Reference Library / Warranties/compliance certificates A R (demand) R (supply)
Reference Library / Configurations/Manuals & instructions A R (demand) R (supply)
Reference Library / MEST for on-site services A R (demand) R (supply)
Reference Library / Service records A R (demand) R (supply)
Reference library / Meetings & Decision records C A / R C
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:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
4 (30)
 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:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
5 (30)
2 Guideline:DocumentManagement
Description of process in Framework:
The aim of the document management process is ensuring access to critical documentation
to support site management processes and on-site services.
Gaps in the site policies or reference library affect the effectiveness of all other site
management processes and inaccurate or obsolete documents can lead to wrong decisions
in the other site management processes.
Site policies
Site Management is responsible for creating, issuing and updating policies and procedures
for management of the site:
 Site strategy including sourcing strategy for external suppliers
 Disaster Recovery Plan (DR Plan) incl. Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP) for
site management
 Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for site management
 Cost Distribution Model for the site
 On-site work rules
 Organization, incl. third party dependencies
Reference library
The materials in reference library are identified recorded and provided to site management
from the providers of related services or systems.
 Agreements and border lists
 As built drawings and studies, e.g. soil, electrical, environmental
 Asset lists incl. end of life (EOL) for site systems
 Warranties, acceptance tests and certificates of regulatory compliance
 Site Configurations Procedures, incl. manuals and vendor instructions
 Method statements for on-site services
 Service records for on-site services
 Meetings and decisions records
The site management function analyzes and structures the different materials into the
relevant reference library categories.
Materials found in the site policies and reference library should fall into one of three
categories;
 master records used in several processes, e.g. Asset List or Border List
 templates for preparing day-to-day materials in other processes, e.g. Permit to Work

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
6 (30)
 policy requirements on other processes, e.g. Cost Distribution Model or DR Plan
The document management process is aligned with the border list, while some of the
materials are also integrated and aligned with the customer to ensure efficiency and fit-for-
purpose governance escalations, e.g. disaster recovery plan.
2.1 Site Policies
The purpose of the Site Policies is ensuring access to critical documentation to support site
management processes and control on-site services.
Gaps in the site policies affect the effectiveness of all other site management processes and
inaccurate or obsolete documents can lead to wrong decisions.
The materials in the site policies are managed by the site management function.
2.1.1 Site Strategy incl. Sourcing strategy for external suppliers
Alignment of strategies requires regular communication between customers and the site
owner. The time a strategy remains valid depends on the type of a site, e.g. whether it is an
internal or external service provider.
A period of validity of at least three years is recommended to enable site operations to act on
the established strategies.
2.1.1.1 Key outputs
Typical outputs would include the following:
Output Comment
Site strategy clarifying expected performance for the coming period
Sourcing strategy clarifying principles for critical Border Listaspects.
Note: Sourcing strategy may change over time and then require updates to
SOW, Border List and supplier agreements (found in Reference Library)
Furthermore:
 Affected processes aligned with requirements, e.g. targets for Lifecycle & Financial
mgmt or adjustments to annual planners in Team & Suppliers mgmt
 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 site strategy and sourcing strategy have been refreshed and
communicated, 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:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
7 (30)
2.1.1.3 Site strategy
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. Technical requirements, demands for lowered environmental impact and even the
desired level of resilience can change during the sites lifetime.
The site strategy will affect how the site will be technically developed in the coming period as
well as how to be operated based on where in the lifecycle the site currently stands. To align
the current and future capabilities, at least the following items should be addressed:
 are sufficient capacities provided for the expected power densities?
 are there technologies on the market that can lower the environmental impact?
 will new or additional customer segments require changes in any service levels?
 are the services offered at competitive market cost levels?
 are organizational resilience and technical robustness adequate for the business?
The site owner is accountable for establishing and communicating the site strategy. This
often involves multiple stakeholders, e.g. business owners and management from IT and
Real Estate. Advisory services consultants often provide the needed project skills and
models required to establish a strategy. Furthermore, they usually bring external
perspectives to the strategy through market trends analyses, business case assessments as
well as input from internal and external sources, e.g. the Site Management function.
When the strategy is established, Site Management should leverage it to strike a relevant
balance between:
 Performance improvement
 Reduction of environmental impacts
 Cost reduction
 Risk Reduction
This balance should be reflected in the Annual Planning for the site, e.g. financial
management and lifecycle management decisions that will impact how assets will be
maintained or replaced.
The annual plan and KPIs should be validated against the current Site Strategy and be cost
assessed by the Site Management function before being agreed with the Site Owner.
2.1.1.4 Sourcing strategy
Besides technical resources, a site owner need to decide on a sourcing strategy for external
suppliers.
There are three different types of sourcing models in use for operations.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
8 (30)
Depending on which sourcing strategy is applied to the site(s) in scope, personnel needs to
be trained on those activities kept insourced. Relying on suppliers may in return require skills
in project management and supplier management.
Model 1 – Single service outsourcing
The first model describes a site owner with a multi-supplier sourcing approach. Single
service suppliers provide the on-site services they are best suited for while the site owner
has a service management or operations function responsible for coordinating the suppliers.
This setup is to minimize risks of multiple service windows at the same time since the
operations function coordinates the work, as well as having suppliers avoid performing
services that could have a negative impact on other parts of the site configuration. The
coordination is often handled via recurring performance and planning meetings.
The site owner handles the procurement of services, annual ratings and price reviews of
service suppliers, as well as financial and technical reviews of the actual services being
planned and performed.
Model 2 – Hybrid
The second model is a hybrid of model 1, multi-supplier sourcing approach, and model 3,
integrated operations. The site owner has a main supplier providing site management
services, which includes the responsibility for handling other suppliers within a pre-defined
scope.
The site management supplier is responsible for minimizing the risk of multiple conflicting
service windows as well as avoiding performing services that could have a negative impact
on other parts of the site configuration by handling coordination of all on-site services that
are in scope for the site management function.
The site owner reaps the benefit of spending less time on coordination and follow-up in-
house, while retaining control of certain services that are kept under direct sourcing, which
the site management service supplier may not be best suited to handle.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
9 (30)
The site owner can still manage the procurement, annual ratings and price reviews of the
site management and the on-site services.
Financial and technical reviews of the services can be done by the site owner, unless the
parties agree that this is also to be handled by the site management supplier, e.g. using the
principles of “open book”.
The principle of “open book” indicates that the site management supplier openly accounts for
the cost levels and transparently adds its fees and margin levels for handling the on-site
service providers, e.g. financial and technical reviews and recurring planning meetings on
behalf of the customer organization.
Model 3 – Integrated operations
The third model, integrated operations, means that the site owner has a single service
supplier handling all site related services and the governance of those at a given price
structure.
This model may be in line with a pure demand-supply relationship at fixed or variable service
fees, or it may be based on the integrated service supplier representing the customer in
relationship to the on-site service suppliers with an “open book” approach or other fee
structures.
2.1.2 Disaster Recovery Plan incl. Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP)
The disaster recovery plan (DRP or DR Plan) with supporting documentation and planned
activities, e.g. training and testing aim to effectively return the site to normal conditions.
The Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP) are put in place to ensure site operations until
returned to normal operating conditions.
There should be a system in place to keep these records well organized and up-to-date.
Accurate information that is readily available to anyone in the organization needing access is
a fundamental operational goal. A manual process may be less convenient and feature rich,
but it could be more resilient in times of crises.
2.1.2.1 Key outputs
Output Comment
DR Plan for site(s) in scope including requirements for training and testing,and its review cycle
Crisis MgmtContactlists
(incl. 24/7 fallback)
 Site Owner
 Site ManagementFunction
 On-site Service Providers
 Other Stakeholders,e.g.government
Listof EOPs with meta data to enable identification ofasset,authoring parties,refresh
cycle and mandated decision makers,etc.
EOPs for site(s) in scope for all site mgmtprocesses in scope

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
10 (30)
Output Comment
Template for EOPs used to documentEmergencyOperating Procedures for site(s) in scope
Template for Crisis Mgmt
Contact lists
used to documentcurrentCrisis mgmtcontactlists in scope
Other required templates As may be defined by DR Plan or other source
Furthermore:
 Affected processes aligned with requirements, e.g. Incident Management, Team &
Suppliers Mgmt (annual planners and staff records) and Compliance Mgmt
To validate that the DR plan and Crisis Management Contact list are suitable, 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.
To validate that the EOP for Site Management are relevant, a KPI is used showing that the
risk level is acceptable for operating outside normal conditions. The process Monitoring and
reporting, sub-process "Risk" is used for KPI follow-up.
To validate that DR training has been executed, a KPI is used showing the risk level is
acceptable regarding disaster recovery readiness. The process Monitoring and reporting,
sub-process "Risk" is used for KPI follow-up.
To validate that DR testing has been executed, a KPI is used showing the risk level is
acceptable regarding disaster recovery readiness. The process Monitoring and reporting,
sub-process "Risk" is used for KPI follow-up.
2.1.2.3 DR Plan
The DR Plan is a documented, structured approach with instructions for responding to
incidents.
This step-by-step plan consists of the precautions to minimize the effects of a disaster so the
organization can continue to operate or quickly resume mission-critical functions.
DR plans that follow common best practices, e.g. ISO22301 for business continuity
management, also include other critical elements to be fully effective:
 Site systems disaster risks identified: use Business Impact Analysis (BIA) and
Risk Assessment to identify
 Stakeholders confirmed: key roles and individuals should be confirmed, regardless
of organization (internal, external, third parties)
 Training requirements: type of DR training and frequency required per role
 Testing requirements: type of DR testing and frequency, e.g. Black Building Test

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
11 (30)
Based on the policy requirements set in the DR Plan, this should go into the annual plan
cycle for Compliance Management to ensure the training and testing requirements are
fulfilled through Plan-Do-Study-Act and thereby lead to refreshing the DR plan.
It is not uncommon that personnel need to go through specific DR trainings to be considered
qualified for certain parts of site operations. The records for this is managed through the
process Team and Supplier Management, sub-process Staff register.
2.1.2.4 Emergency Operating Procedures for Site Management (EOP)
EOP means Emergency Operating Procedures for Site Management Function. These
procedures define how the site is controlled and operated during abnormal circumstances or
emergency situations.
Not to be confused with MEST or MOP which regulates on-site work practices.
Site Management processes are composed of sub-processes where activities and
procedures describe how the actual work is to be performed.
There may be standard EOP templates for different processes or sub-processes. However,
these always need to be reviewed, documented (after adaptations to meet specific site
requirements, e.g. regulatory, policy or technical demands) and stored in a structured way to
enable version and access control.
Regardless of which process is being detailed, an EOP should include at least:
 Summary and purpose
 Process / sub-process(es) in scope
 Criteria for leaving EOP to resume normal operations
 Procedures for activities, instructions and references to resources where needed
 Glossary of definitions for terms used
By leveraging the process Delivery Support, which includes problem management,
knowledge management and benchmarking services, the site management function could
make use of lessons learned and re-use anonymized examples of proven EOPs for other
sites.
2.1.3 Standard Operating Procedures for Site Management (SOP)
Standard Operating Procedures for Site Management Function define how the site is
controlled and operated during normal circumstances.
Not to be confused with MEST or MOP which regulates on-site work practices.
Site Management processes are composed of sub-processes where activities and
procedures describe how the actual work is to be performed.
There may be standard SOP templates for different processes or sub-processes. However,
these always need to be reviewed, documented (after adaptations to meet specific site
requirements, e.g. regulatory, policy or technical demands) and stored in a structured way to
enable version and access control.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
12 (30)
Regardless of which process is being detailed, a SOP should include at least:
 Summary and purpose
 Process / sub-process(es) in scope
 Procedures for activities, instructions and references to resources where needed
 Glossary of definitions for terms used
By leveraging the process Delivery Support, which includes knowledge management and
benchmarking services, the site management function could make use of lessons learned
and re-use anonymized examples of proven SOPs for other sites.
a fundamental operational goal.
Ideally this is accomplished through a Computer Aided Facility Management system (CAFM)
or a document management system that can automate processes and facilitate document
processing, storage, retrieval, and archiving. Not everyone’s budget can accommodate such
a system, however. A more manual process may be less convenient and feature rich, but it
can still work.
2.1.3.1 Key outputs
Output Comment
Listof SOPs with meta data to enable identification ofasset,authoring parties,refresh
SOPs for Site mgmt for all site mgmtprocesses in scope
Template for SOPs used to documentStandard Operating Procedures for site(s) in scope
Meeting templates for meetings atoperational,tactical and strategic levels
Reporttemplates e.g. KPI reporting,service level reporting, root cause analysis
Other templates required for
Site mgmt
e.g. WO & ProjectMgmt (Service Request, Change Request),Team &
Suppliers Mgmt (annual planner, staffregister)
Furthermore:
 Affected processes aligned with requirements, e.g. Monitoring & Reporting and Work
Orders & Project mgmt
To validate that the SOP for Site Management are relevant, a KPI is used showing that the
review and approve cycle has been completed.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
13 (30)
2.1.4 Cost Distribution Model
The Cost Distribution Model is required for clarifying how costs related to the site(s) in scope
should be distributed to meet several stakeholder perspectives.
It is possible that costs do not directly relate to an infrastructure asset, but clearly belong to
the infrastructure costs. Therefore, a cost model to distribute the costs is needed.
An illustrative example would be a maintenance fee for a site supply system that is paid as a
lump sum in advance at the beginning of the year. Cost management should then have a
model that clarifies how to distribute these costs during the year:
 deducted per month as the actual maintenance is carried out throughout the year
 distributed among the components based on to their financial status in the Asset List,
e.g. Initial value or Current value
 shared across components based on actual operation hours, e.g. between A and B
redundant components
 other site-specific principle or combination of those above
The site owner is accountable for establishing the Cost Distribution Model, or approving the
model managed by the Site Management function.
The three main perspectives on how to distribute costs are:
 Site Management; all costs and how to fit site lifecycle & financial management
 Site Owner; all costs and how to fit with overall financial management principles
 End user organization(s); what costs and how to distribute these between the parties
2.1.4.1 Key outputs
Output Comment
CostDistribution Model with clarified principles to meetstakeholders needs
Supporting template(s) for Lifecycle & Financial Mgmtof site(s) in scope
Furthermore:
 Affected processes aligned with requirements, e.g. Lifecycle & Financial Mgmt and
Document mgmt (Asset List)

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
14 (30)
To validate that the Cost Distribution Model has been refreshed and approved, a KPI is used
showing that that the review and approval cycle has been completed.
2.1.4.3 Perspective: Site management function
The distribution model should allow for the site management function to perform the lifecycle
and financial management process.
This means that costs should be split between on-site services, site management and
delivery support, and where relevant also per location.
Site management costs and delivery support are split according to what processes the costs
relate to, and there is a distinction made between internal and external costs. Regardless of
sourcing strategy there will always be some external costs from a site management
perspective.
For on-site services, these are first split between three types of
 services specifically dedicated to different infrastructure elements, e.g. maintenance
of a type of site system in a certain location
 more generalized services to be distributed across several infrastructure elements,
e.g. site inspections covering several site systems in scope
 independent on-site services to be cost controlled on a process level, e.g. security
and access
Site management and delivery support functions are distributed per process.
A suitable Cost Distribution Model to meet the Site Management perspective will leverage
the structure of the Asset List and the calculation model used in establishing the budget for a
site operations agreement.
All in all, this will enable the Site Management function to perform the lifecycle and financial
management processes; budgetary work, account and analyze costs as they are incurred to
match against the budget and forecast outcomes.
2.1.4.4 Perspective: Site owner
The distribution model often follows the same book-keeping rules as the site owner’s overall
organization, typically based on splitting capex and opex between different types of
infrastructure elements, personnel costs and indirect costs/overhead.
However, this is not a requirement and there is no universally agreed standard model for
how the distribution model should be defined, e.g. EN50600-3-1 (Terms, definitions and
abbreviations) consider the Cost Distribution Model to be used for distributing costs that
cannot be directly related to an infrastructure item.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
15 (30)
The important thing is that the distribution model is relevant from an overall financial
management perspective for the site owner, which means it may be cut differently than the
view for the site management function – or it may be identical.
Some examples of cost distribution for site owners:
 It could be split between processes, e.g. on-site services have their own cost coding
while the different site management processes have others and indirect costs
(“overhead charges”) for delivery support services has a third group of cost coding.
 Internal vs external supplier costs, if relevant from a sourcing strategy perspective
 There may be a split between which infrastructure elements are affected or which
supplier is providing the services/products being invoiced.
 “Planned/expected” and “Unplanned/incidents” costs could be separated
2.1.4.5 Perspective: end user organization(s)
The overall Cost Distribution Model should be comprehensive to the site operations.
However, sites that support external customers, e.g. colocations or a portfolio of different
sites serving different parts of a business, need to ensure there is a clear view of cost
distribution that balances the costs between each end user organization.
The distribution according to this perspective needs to be relevant from an overall financial
management perspective for the end user organization, which means it may be cut
differently than the view for the site owner – or it may be identical.
Some examples of cost distribution for end user organizations:
 It could be abstracted into a service fee for reserved capacity, e.g. floorspace and
power consumption
 It could be split between types of costs, e.g. on-site services, site management
processes and indirect costs (“overhead charges”) for delivery support services
 “Planned/expected” and “Unplanned/incidents” costs could be separated
2.1.4.6 Simplified example to help illustrate Cost Distribution Model perspectives
Please use the below example to review the sections on different perspectives when
establishing the Cost Distribution Model. The tables are simplified and lack some details, but
hopefully provide some insights on what to consider.
The example is a colocation operator with multiple customers.
The aim of the operator is to focus its customer experience on IT based services, e.g.
storage or private cloud, but also to manage the physical assets for their customers.
The supporting sourcing strategy for the site is therefore focused on in-house resources for
customer facing activities, i.e. handling IT equipment and escorting customers. The sourcing
strategy has also clarified that other services related to the site are not considered part of the
core business. In short, site management and most on-site services have been outsourced.
The first table shows you the end-customer perspective for the cost distribution model. In
short it is based on access to capacity and space.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
16 (30)
The second table shows you the site owner perspective for the cost distribution model. It
aligns to the sourcing strategy, but also adds the property costs involved. Please note the
different handling of SLA fees to be receive and the potential SLA penalties to pay out.
The following table (third and final) shows you the Site mangers perspective for the cost
distribution model. In this example, the outsourced Site Operations includes multiple
providers, but all managed via the common Site Management function. This adds complexity
to how to handle SLA payments and what SLA penalties to claim from different providers. It
also shows the need to break down costs elements between different processes or
suppliers, depending on what fits the site best.
End-user Organization
Baseline fees for colocation services Payment
fixed fee per rack and max power load Quarterly in advance
actual energy use Monthly accrued
Energy surcharge based on PUE Monthly accrued
Fees for additionalcolocation services
Site assistance services, hourly rate Monthly accrued
SLA commitment
SLA penalties to receive, uptime % Deducted from following quarterly fee
Site Owner
Site Operations Payment Provider
Site Management Quarterly in advance External
Planned on-site services, Security & Access Quarterly in advance External
Planned on-site services, maintenance Quarterly in advance External
Planned on-site services, site assistance Monthly salaries Internal
Unplanned on-site services Monthly accrued Combination
Service Requests Monthly accrued Combination
SLA Penalties to receive, Site Mgmt Deducted as part from next quarterly fee External
SLA Penalties to receive, Security & Access Deducted as part from next quarterly fee External
SLA Penalties to receive, on-site services, Maintenance Deducted as part from next quarterly fee External
SLA Penalties to receive, on-site services, Site assistance None Internal
Property costs
Property rent and fees Quarterly in advance External
Property taxes, permits etc. Annually accrued External
Energy use
Grid access fees Monthly in advance External
Energy fees Monthly accrued External
Energy taxes, permits etc. Annually accrued External
SLA risks
SLA Penalties to pay / risk add-on % of total split across colo baseline fee Internal

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
17 (30)
Site Management
Site Management Payment Provider
Site Management, all processes in scope Monthly salaries Internal
On-site service, planned
On-site services, security & access Monthly in advance Provider "V"
On-site services, maintenance, Power distribution Monthly salaries Internal
On-site services, maintenance, Environmental control Monthly salaries Internal
On-site services, maintenance, Telecom cabling infrastructure Monthly accrued Provider "T"
On-site services, maintenance, Security systems Annually in advance Provider "S"
In-/outdoor FM, Net Floor Area Monthly accrued Provider "F"
In-/outdoor FM, outside Net Floor Area (indoor) Out-of-scope Site Owner
In-/outdoor FM, outside Net Floor Area (outdoor) Out-of-scope Site Owner
On-site services, site inspections Monthly salaries Internal
On-site services, Audits & Compliance reviews Out-of-scope Site Owner
On-site services, site assistance Out-of-scope Site Owner
On-site service, unplanned
On-site services, security & access Monthly per ticket Provider "V"
On-site services, maintenance, Power distribution Monthly salaries Internal
On-site services, maintenance, Environmental control Monthly salaries Internal
On-site services, maintenance, Telecom cabling infrastructure Monthly per ticket + T&M Provider "T"
On-site services, maintenance, Security systems Monthly per ticket + T&M Provider "S"
In-/outdoor FM, Net Floor Area Monthly accrued Provider "F"
On-site services, site inspections Monthly salaries Internal
SLA penalties to receive
Site Management, all processes in scope None Internal
On-site services, security & access Reaction / response time as % of fee Provider "V"
On-site services, maintenance, Power distribution None Internal
On-site services, maintenance, Environmental control None Internal
On-site services, maintenance, Telecom cabling infrastructure Reaction / response time as % of fee Provider "T"
On-site services, maintenance, Security systems Reaction / response time as % of fee Provider "S"
In-/outdoor FM, Net Floor Area Reaction / response time as % of fee Provider "F"
On-site services, site inspections None Internal
SLA penalties to pay
Site Management, Incident / WO & PM Reaction / response time as % of fee Internal
Site Management, Monitoring & Reporting / Document Mgmt Complete / accurate / timely as % of fee Internal
Site Management, Rest of processes No SLA Internal
On-site services, security & access Reaction / response time as % of fee Provider "V"
On-site services, maintenance, Power distribution Reaction / response time as % of fee Internal
On-site services, maintenance, Power distribution Deferred planned work as % of fee Internal
On-site services, maintenance, Environmental control Reaction / response time as % of fee Internal
On-site services, maintenance, Environmental control Deferred planned work as % of fee Internal
On-site services, maintenance, Telecom cabling infrastructure Reaction / response time as % of fee Provider "T"
On-site services, maintenance, Telecom cabling infrastructure Deferred planned work as % of fee Provider "T"
On-site services, maintenance, Security systems Reaction / response time as % of fee Provider "S"
On-site services, maintenance, Security systems Deferred planned work as % of fee Provider "S"
In-/outdoor FM, Net Floor Area No SLA Provider "F"
On-site services, site inspections No SLA Internal

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
18 (30)
2.1.5 On-site work rules
The purpose of the rules for on-site work is primarily to ensure safety by minimizing risks of
incidents, i.e. Health & Safety and site performance. Typical rules include risk reviews before
starting work, appropriate tooling as well as other requirements for permit to work.
BICSI 009-2019 stipulates a useful structure to consider, found under section “Work Safety”:
 Safety Planning
 Safety Meetings and Briefings
 Emergencies
 Electrical Safety
 Mechanical Safety
 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
 Work Place Safety Training
 Accident Reporting
 (also note “Handling of hazardous materials”, under section “Equipment Delivery and
Shipments”)
Its secondary purpose is to ensure that the site is kept secure and at a suitable level of
quality, e.g. rules on wearing visible badges, cleaning up after performing work or removing
equipment that is on longer used.
The rules may stipulate penalties to be applied in case of found deviations or complaints to
ensure compliance is met.
The policy with rules for on-site work is managed by the site management function on behalf
of the Site Owner.
2.1.5.1 Key outputs
Output Comment
Policy for on-site work rules communicated to all on-site personnel
Supporting template(s) e.g. for Work Orders & Project mgmt or On-site Services (Site inspections)
Furthermore:
 Affected processes aligned with requirements, e.g. Document mgmt (Method
statements for on-site services), Work Orders & Project Mgmt, Team & Suppliers
Mgmt (annual planners and staff registers) and On-site Services (Site Inspection)

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
19 (30)
To validate that the policy with rules for on-site work has been refreshed and communicated,
a KPI is used showing the review and approval cycle is completed.
To validate that site training has been executed, a KPI is used showing that qualification
requirements have been met and noted in the staff register. The process Monitoring and
reporting, sub-process "Quality" is used for KPI follow-up.
To validate that on-site work rules are being followed, a KPI is used showing the risk level is
acceptable based on performed site inspections. The process Monitoring and reporting, sub-
process "Risk" is used for KPI follow-up.
2.1.6 Organization, incl. third party dependencies
The Operating Model describes the organization required to manage the day-to-day work
during normal operating conditions.
If there is a need to for escalations during normal operating conditions, the Governance
model provides clarity on who reports to who and what mandates are applicable.
Please note that there are specific requirements for Crisis Management when the site is no
longer under normal operating conditions, please refer to the DR Plan.
2.1.6.1 Key outputs
Output Comment
Operating model:
Contact lists
(24/7 where applicable)
 Site Owner
 Other Stakeholders,e.g.government
Governance model:
Organization charts
(who reports to who)
 Site Owner
Operating model:
Role descriptions
 Site Owner: Operational level representative(s)
 Site ManagementFunction:Site Manager and Site Coordinator
 On-site Services: Site Engineer,ProjectMgr, Site Tech., Service Tech.
Note: other roles may be needed or other titles used
Governance model:
Role descriptions
 Site Owner: Tactical and Strategic level representative(s)
 Site Operations:Tactical and Strategic level representative(s)
Template for Operating Model
Contact lists
used to documentcurrentoperating model contactlists in scope

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
20 (30)
Output Comment
Template for Governance
Model Org charts
used to documentcurrentoperating model org charts in scope
Template for Role descriptions used to documentcurrentoperating model and governance role descriptions
Other templates required for
organizations
Used to documentand explain relationships,accountabilities and how to
contact or report
Furthermore:
 Affected processes aligned with requirements, e.g. Team & Suppliers Management
and Delivery Support (Governance)
To validate that the Operating Model materials have been refreshed and confirmed, a KPI is
used showing the review and approval cycle is completed. The process Monitoring and
To validate that the Governance materials have been refreshed and confirmed, a KPI is
used showing the review and approval cycle is completed. The process Monitoring and
2.2 Reference Library
The purpose of the Reference Library is ensuring access to critical documentation to support
site management processes and on-site services.
Gaps in the reference library affect the effectiveness of all other site management processes
and inaccurate or obsolete documents can lead to wrong decisions.
The materials in the reference library are identified, recorded and provided to site
management from the providers of related services or systems.
The site management function analyzes and structures the different materials into the
relevant reference library categories.
2.2.1 Agreements incl. Border lists
Site Operations always rely on some amount of external resources, both suppliers of
services and products. This requires agreements to be in place and border lists to minimize
risks of misunderstandings and lost opportunities for continuous improvements.
Even if the sourcing strategy is to keep as much as possible in-house, there is value in
regulating the services provided within the site owner’s organization, at a minimum using
border lists and a Statement of Work (SOW) for the Site Operations.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
21 (30)
The SOW documents what services are committed to be in-scope for the site operations; it
may be that only Site management is included or it may be a fully managed as-a-Service
delivery.
Ideally this is accomplished through a document management system that can automate
processes and facilitate document processing, storage, retrieval, and archiving. Not
everyone’s budget can accommodate such a system, however. A more manual process may
be less convenient and feature rich, but it can still work.
2.2.1.1 Key outputs
Output Comment
Agreements List with meta data to enable identification ofcontracting parties,costdistribution
model,border list,refresh cycle and mandated decision makers,etc.
Copies ofall agreements relating to the site and its services
Statementof Work (SOW) clarifies whatservices are included in the site operations baseline and what
services need individual service requests or are fully out-of-scope.
note: the SOW should be listed in the AgreementList
Border list using RACI to clarify stakeholders,responsibilities and dependencies
Furthermore:
 Affected processes aligned with requirements, e.g. Service Level Mgmt, Lifecycle &
Financial Mgmt, Team & Suppliers Mgmt and On-site Services
Note: Sourcing strategy (found in Site Policies) may change over time and then
require updates to SOW, Border List and supplier agreements
To validate that the Border List has been refreshed and confirmed, a KPI is used showing
that it is included in the review and that the approval cycle is completed. The process
Monitoring and reporting, sub-process "Quality" is used for KPI follow-up.
To validate that the Agreements List and supporting materials have been refreshed and
confirmed, a KPI is used showing that it is included in the review and that the approval cycle
is completed. The process Monitoring and reporting, sub-process "Quality" is used for KPI
follow-up.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
22 (30)
2.2.2 As-built drawings and studies
A site is never static during its full lifecycle; changes are made because of circumstances
that emerge on site or even during its initial construction. These changes can be relatively
minor or can be very significant.
As a result, as-built drawings are prepared no later than when the construction is complete,
to reflect what has actually been built or changed. These can be complemented by as-built
surveys or other studies that may be required for, e.g. Health & Safety compliance reporting.
The List of drawings and studies must be kept up to date, incorporating details of
modifications made. If not, ultimately, surveys may become necessary to re-create accurate
measured drawings.
The requirement to produce as-built drawings with studies and surveys must be set out in
tender documentation, and should not be assumed to be part of ‘standard’ services. It can
be a time-consuming exercise, and as the project team will be keen to move on to other
jobs, it is important that adequate retention remains to ensure completion of as-built and
related materials.
If a building information model (BIM) has been produced, this must be updated to reflect any
changes to the design, and then issued to the site owner in a format that the site
management team can leverage.
processes and facilitate document processing, storage, retrieval, and archiving. Not
everyone’s budget can accommodate such a system, however. A more manual process may
be less convenient and feature rich, but it can still work.
2.2.2.1 Key outputs
Output Comment
Listof drawings and studies with meta data to enable identification ofasset,authoring parties,refresh
Copies ofall as-builtdrawings for the site and related facilities,e.g. connectivity
Copies ofstudies and surveys e.g. soils,structural,electrical,mechanical,breaker,circuit
Furthermore:
 Affected processes aligned with requirements, e.g. Work Orders & Project Mgmt and
On-site Services
Note: Work Orders & Project mgmt may provide changes to the site that may require
updates to this part of the Reference Library

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
23 (30)
To validate that the List of drawings and studies with supporting materials have been
refreshed and confirmed, a KPI is used showing that it is included in the review and that the
approval cycle is completed. The process Monitoring and reporting, sub-process "Quality" is
used for KPI follow-up.
2.2.3 Assets list for site systems, incl. End Of Life (EOL)
The supply systems and their components are constantly modified, upgraded, replaced and
removed because of circumstances that emerge on site over time. These changes can be
relatively minor or can be very significant.
Accurate and consistent tracking of all supply system assets is the foundation of efficient site
operations. As a result, the Asset List must be well-maintained as an inaccurate one will
result in inefficiency or even supply system failures.
To address this, a computer aided facility management system (CAFM) should be used to
record, track, and manage asset data.
The site management team must ensure Asset Lists are up to date, incorporating relevant
details, e.g. make/model/EOL, maintenance schedule, cost distribution model, financial
status, key suppliers, references to supporting materials etc. If they do not do this, ultimately,
site inspections may become necessary to re-create accurate asset lists.
Therefore, the requirement to keep the asset lists accurate not be assumed to be part of
‘standard’ services, but be required and validated.
can still work.
2.2.3.1 Key outputs
Output Comment
AssetListfor all supply
systems and components
should include meta data to enable location and identification ofasset,
make/model/EOL,maintenance schedule,operating condition,cost
distribution model,financial status,key suppliers, references to supporting
materials etc.
Template for AssetList to be used for documenting currentsupplysystems and components

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
24 (30)
Furthermore:
 Affected processes aligned with requirements, e.g. Work Orders & Project Mgmt,
Team & Supplier Mgmt and On-site Services
 Reference List of amendments or formal comments, e.g. minutes of meetings or
technical risk reviews. Note: Work Orders & Project mgmt may provide changes to
the site that may require updates to this part of the Reference Library
To validate that the Asset List has been refreshed and confirmed, a KPI is used showing that
it is included in the review and that the approval cycle is completed. The process Monitoring
and reporting, sub-process "Quality" is used for KPI follow-up.
2.2.4 Warranties, acceptance tests and regulatory compliance certificates
A site is never static during its full lifecycle; changes are made because of circumstances
that emerge on site or even during its initial construction. The changes, that can affect the
building itself or the supply systems and their components, can be relatively minor or can be
very significant.
As a result, manufacturers’ warranties, acceptance tests and other certificates for regulatory
compliance are needed to ensure safe and secure operations and maintenance.
The requirement to produce the required documentation must be set out from start of the
project, and should not be assumed to be part of ‘standard’ services. It can be a time-
consuming exercise, and as the project team will be keen to move on to other jobs, it is
important that adequate retention remains to ensure completion of the documentation.
The site management team must ensure materials are up to date, incorporating relevant
details. If they do not do this, ultimately, site inspections may become necessary to re-create
the documentation and regulatory penalties may be due.
can still work.
2.2.4.1 Key outputs

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
25 (30)
Output Comment
Listof warranties,acceptances
and certificates mapped with
AssetList
with meta data to enable identification ofasset,authoring parties,refresh
Copies ofall warranty
certificates
including warrantyfulfillmentrequirements
Copies ofall acceptance tests
certificates
e.g. FAT, SAT, IST for supplysystems or commissioning reports for the
complete site (incl.load tests)
Copies ofall regulatory
compliance certificates
e.g. Health & Safety, Environmental,Building permits and other government
demands.
Copies ofall other compliance
certificates for the site
e.g. internal/external auditreports, black building tests,etc.
Furthermore:
 Affected processes aligned with requirements, e.g. Document Management (Method
Statements for on-site services), Compliance mgmt and On-site Services
Note: updated vendor requirements may require changes to this part of the
Reference Library as well as the process Team & Suppliers mgmt (staff register)
Note: Work Orders & Project mgmt may provide changes to the site that may require
updates to this part of the Reference Library
To validate that the List of warranties, acceptances and certificates with supporting materials
have been refreshed and confirmed, a KPI is used showing that it is included in the review
and that the approval cycle is completed. The process Monitoring and reporting, sub-process
"Quality" is used for KPI follow-up.
2.2.5 Site Configuration Procedures, incl. Manuals and vendor instructions
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.
The SCP is a description and administration of the normal operating configuration of the site
(including setpoints, discrimination study, and normally open/normally closed breakers or
valves, etc. based on manufacturers’ manuals and instructions together with site specific
settings)
The site management team must ensure materials are collected, produced and up to date,
incorporating relevant details. If they do not do this, ultimately, site inspections may become

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
26 (30)
necessary to re-create accurate documentation while warranty claims may fail due to
incorrect operations and maintenance.
can still work.
2.2.5.1 Key outputs
Output Comment
Listof Site Configuration
Procedures (materials below)
with meta data to enable identification ofasset,authoring parties,refresh
Copies ofall vendor manuals
and instructions
for all site supplysystems and components
Configurations for normal
operating conditions
for all site supplysystems and components
Note: for critical components ensure to have on-site copy close to asset, e.g.
switch gear breaker settings
Template for SCPs used to establish Site Configuration Procedures for site(s) in scope
Furthermore:
 Affected processes aligned with requirements, e.g. Document Management (Method
Statements for on-site services), Team & Suppliers Mgmt (staff register) and On-site
Services
Note: vendor requirements may provide specific demands on staff qualifications
To validate that the List of site configurations with supporting materials have been refreshed
and confirmed, a KPI is used showing that it is included in the review and that the approval
cycle is completed. The process Monitoring and reporting, sub-process "Quality" is used for
KPI follow-up.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
27 (30)
2.2.6 Method Statements for on-site services (MEST)
Any work on or around mission critical sites supply systems requires special precautions and
coordination with the affected stakeholders to ensure that the intended results are achieved
without any unwanted or unexpected consequences.
Poor management of this may result in failures such as turning a wrong valve, cutting power
to the wrong feed, or accidental exposure to a live electrical conductor. The primary
mechanism for managing on-site work is the Method Statement (MEST). A MEST is
essentially a detailed checklist of each step in a specific task, e.g. a preventative or
corrective maintenance or a service project in live environments.
Development of MESTs should consider peer reviews of the work procedures. These should
be based in part on vendor recommendations for the specific devices being handled, but
must also take into account the overall system dependencies along with any unique site
requirements.
Risks and mitigating actions need to be identified, documented, and clarified in the MEST.
This will help minimize errors resulting in downtime, rework and associated costs, e.g. re-
dispatch vendors.
Uptime Institute has found that successful MESTs share a number of common attributes:
 define, detail, and delimit the interactions between the human and the machine and
so effectively eliminate or minimize human error.
 describe actions that, when performed in the same sequence and starting from the
same original configuration, lead to the same outcome.
 describe actions that leave no room for interpretation. Two different individuals
following the same MEST will perform exactly the same actions in exactly the same
order regardless of location, company, language, and cultural bias.
 describe actions in simple steps; the procedures never add complexity.
Achieving successful MESTs requires a careful balancing act. Overly long procedures and
excessive detail may motivate technicians to cut corners, accelerate processes, or lose
focus. But the trait that stands out most: effective MESTs are those in which the technicians
genuinely understand the need for the procedure and its objective.
can still work.

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
28 (30)
2.2.6.1 Key outputs
Output Comment
MEST List with meta data to enable identification ofasset,authoring parties,refresh
MEST1 (Method Statement1) The MEST1 is the method statementthatdocuments the information
required to gain first-time access to a site, e.g. Site Contact, Site Address,
Key Mgmt routine, required site training,Other site requirements.
Note: access to MEST1 may be restricted due to Non-Disclosure Agreement
MESTs for on-site services for all on-site processes in scope
Template for MESTs used to establish Method Statements for on-site services
Other required templates for
on-site services
e.g. Technical Risk Review (TRR) protocol, regulatory reports etc.
Furthermore:
 Affected processes aligned with requirements, e.g. On-site Services
To validate that the MEST List has been refreshed and confirmed, a KPI is used showing
that it is included in the review and that the approval cycle is completed. The process
Monitoring and reporting, sub-process "Quality" is used for KPI follow-up.
2.2.7 Service records for on-site services
There should be a system in place to keep service records well organized and up-to-date.
processing, storage, retrieval, and archiving.
Not everyone’s budget can accommodate such a system, however. A more manual process
may be less convenient and feature rich, but it can still work.
2.2.7.1 Key outputs

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
29 (30)
Output Comment
Listof Service Records Handled via CAFM to have meta data for identification ofasset,authoring
parties,refresh cycle and mandated decision makers,etc.
Copies ofService records for all in scope work performed on-site,to include (ata minimum):
 work performed
 deviations noted
 time used
 materials used
 opportunities for site improvements
Furthermore:
 Affected processes aligned with requirements, e.g. Monitoring & Reporting (Quality
KPIs)
To validate that the List of Service Records with supporting materials have been refreshed
and confirmed, a KPI is used showing that it is included in the review and that the approval
cycle is completed. The process Monitoring and reporting, sub-process "Quality" is used for
KPI follow-up.
2.2.8 Meetings & Decisions records
There should be a system in place to keep meeting records well organized and up-to-date.
a fundamental operational goal. This applies not only for operational level meetings, but also
for tactical and strategic level meetings.
Decisions are taken also outside formal meetings. It is therefore important to ensure also
such decisions are recorded and kept available for future reference. Specific examples
include decisions taken during an incident or email conversations related to budgeting
principles.
processes and facilitate document processing, storage, retrieval, and archiving.
Not everyone’s budget can accommodate such a system, however. A more manual process
may be less convenient and feature rich, but it can still work.
2.2.8.1 Key outputs

Document name:
Version:
1.1
Author:
L Cardholm
Date:
2020-06-09
Approved by:
G Svensson
Public
30 (30)
Output Comment
Listof Meetings & Decisions
Records
Handled in digital repositoryto have free text search and meta data for
identification of meeting,participants,dates,etc.
Copies ofmeeting records and
minutes ofmeetings
Formatted according to their respective templates or instructions
Copies ofdecisions outside
meetings
Formatted according to needs,e.g. PDF copies ofemails
Furthermore:
 Affected processes aligned with requirements should refer to relevant minutes of
meetings or specific decisions found in the Meeting & Decisions Records
 Reference List of amendments or formal comments to List of Meeting & Decisions
Records, e.g. minutes of meetings or changes to previously communicated decisions
To validate that the List of Meeting & Decision Records with supporting materials have been
refreshed and confirmed, a KPI is used showing that it is included in the review and that the
approval cycle is completed. The process Monitoring and reporting, sub-process "Quality" is
used for KPI follow-up.

8. ocp cfops.document mgmt.guideline.2019.2

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 8. ocp cfops.document mgmt.guideline.2019.2

Similar to 8. ocp cfops.document mgmt.guideline.2019.2 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

8. ocp cfops.document mgmt.guideline.2019.2