Service level agreements and honest targets

Service level management, what makes a service level agreement an agreement rather than a published target, and the reporting pattern that stays green every month while the customer cannot work.

Lesson 9 of 12 in objective 7. Seven ITIL practices in detail, part of ITIL 4 Foundation.

Both halves of an SLA: the services wanted, and how well they must perform. A service level agreement contains A documented agreement (settled with the consumer, not published at them), Which services are wanted (half one — naming only the level is incomplete), How well they must perform (half two — in terms the customer recognises). A service level agreement A documented agreement settled with the consumer, not published at them Which services are wanted half one — naming only the level is incomplete How well they must perform half two — in terms the customer recognises
Both halves of an SLA: the services wanted, and how well they must perform.

What the practice is for

Service level management sets targets for service performance that are expressed in BUSINESS TERMS, and then assesses, monitors and manages delivery against them. The business-terms half is the part that distinguishes it: a provider wanting targets the customer recognises, rather than targets only the provider understands, is describing this practice.

A service level agreement is a documented agreement between provider and customer, and it names two things: which services are wanted, and how well they are expected to perform. Both halves are in the definition — and an option that mentions only one is incomplete.

The watermelon effect

The failure pattern with a name: green on the outside, red on the inside. Availability is reported at 99.8% every month, the service level report is comfortably green, and the business complains constantly that it cannot get its work done. The name is worth knowing because it is asked as a term, and the diagnosis is worth knowing because it is asked as a concept.

What it indicates is that the measure being reported does not reflect the customer's actual experience. Note what it does NOT indicate: not that the customer is unreasonable, not that the target was set too low, and not that measurement is unreliable. The number is probably accurate. It is measuring the wrong thing.

The same month, reported two ways. Only one of them asked the customer. Component metrics — What is measured: Uptime of each part; The report says: Every target met; The customer says: The service was unusable on Monday. Outcome measures — What is measured: Whether the service did its job; The report says: What the customer experienced; The customer says: The same thing Component metrics Outcome measures What is measured Uptime of each part Whether the service did its job The report says Every target met What the customer experienced The customer says The service was unusable on Monday The same thing
The same month, reported two ways. Only one of them asked the customer.

Why a list of component metrics is not an SLA

An agreement listing twenty individual measures — CPU utilisation, network latency, patch currency — with nothing about what the customer is trying to achieve, is weak for a specific reason. Service level agreements should relate to defined OUTCOMES, ideally through a balanced bundle of measures, rather than to operational metrics alone.

The word "balanced" earns its place: the fix for a watermelon SLA is not a stricter version of the wrong number, and it is not one perfect metric either. It is a bundle that between them describe whether the customer got what they needed.

An agreement has to have been agreed

A provider that drafts targets internally, publishes them on the intranet and treats them as the agreed service levels has skipped the requirement that makes an SLA an SLA. There has to be an actual agreement, reached through engagement and discussion with the service consumer.

This is the easiest mark on the objective and the easiest one to talk yourself out of, because the published targets in the scenario are usually reasonable ones. Reasonableness is not the test; agreement is.

How a drafted target becomes an agreement, and the move that does not exist. A column of 3 states: Targets drafted internally (Written by the provider, and usually reasonable ones); Published on the intranet (Treated as the agreed service levels, and settled with nobody); An agreed service level (An actual agreement, which is what makes an SLA an SLA). You get from Targets drafted internally to Published on the intranet by publishing them and treating them as agreed; from Targets drafted internally to An agreed service level by engagement and discussion with the service consumer. One arrow is drawn crossed through, because that move does not exist: Published on the intranet to An agreed service level — never: publishing is not agreeing, and reasonableness is not the test. Targets drafted internally Written by the provider, and usually reasonable ones publishing them and treating them as agreed Published on the intranet Treated as the agreed service levels, and settled with nobody An agreed service level An actual agreement, which is what makes an SLA an SLA engagement and discussion with the service consumer never: publishing is not agreeing, and reasonableness is not the test
How a drafted target becomes an agreement, and the move that does not exist.

Worth carrying in

Service level management
Targets in business terms, then assess, monitor and manage delivery against them.
Service level agreement
Documented agreement naming the services required AND the expected level.
Watermelon effect
Green report, red customer. The measure does not reflect the experience.
Balanced bundle
Outcome-related measures together, rather than one metric or twenty component ones.
Engagement
What makes a published target an agreement.

What the exam does with this

Objective
7. Seven ITIL practices in detail
Share of the exam
47.5% (the whole objective)
Questions in this lesson
5
Signed for by a person
0

Partly checked. None of the 5 questions here has been read against the cited source by a person. 5 questions have been checked against their cited clause by an automated pass — which is not the same thing, and is not a signature.

Only questions a person has signed for are used in mock exams here. That is the whole difference between the two kinds of checking above.

How these questions are written — where each question comes from, what the verification ledger records, and what happens when one is found wrong.

Drill this lesson

A lesson is one sitting: the trainer draws a short run from these questions alone and spaces the ones you get wrong.

Practise Service level agreements and honest targets

Questions in this lesson

Practise Service level agreements and honest targets

The rest of objective 7