An organization agrees a target for 'average response time of the order-entry transaction' but this measure is not tied to any service in the service catalogue. Why does the service level management practice warn against this?
ITIL 4 Foundation, objective 7. Seven ITIL practices in detail medium
Machine-checked — no person has signed for it. This question was read against the source cited below by an automated pass, which found no contradiction. That is a weaker claim than it sounds: the same kind of process wrote the question, so it can confirm its own mistake.
Treat it as a good draft rather than as settled fact, and read the source below before you rely on it. It is not used in mock exams here — only questions a person has signed for are.
How these questions are written — where each question comes from, what the verification ledger records, and what happens when one is found wrong.
The options
Correct A target that does not relate to a defined service is just an individual metric with no purpose behind it
Correct. Agreements must relate to a defined service; otherwise the numbers float free of anything the customer is actually buying or the provider is actually accountable for.
Not correct Response time is a subjective measure and cannot be agreed contractually
Response time is objectively measurable. The defect described is the missing link to a defined service, not the nature of the measurement.
Not correct Only availability and capacity measures may be used as agreed service targets
There is no such restriction. Performance measures are legitimate; they simply have to hang off a defined service.
Not correct Targets of this kind belong to the business analysis practice rather than service level management
Business analysis analyses needs and recommends solutions; it does not take ownership of service targets. The issue is the missing service definition, not the owning practice.
Why
One requirement for successful SLAs is that they relate to a defined service — normally one described in the service catalogue. Without that anchor, agreed numbers are free-floating metrics: nobody can say which service is in trouble when a number is missed, and no meaningful scope of accountability exists.
Where this comes from
- Cited
- ITIL 4 syllabus clause 7
Practise this
Reading one question is not practice. The trainer will draw a short set from objective 7 and space the ones you get wrong.
More questions on this objective
- Which statement best describes what the incident management practice is intended to achieve? machine-checked
- How is an incident defined in ITIL? machine-checked
- Several incidents are open at once and the support team must decide which to work on first. On what basis should the order be decided? machine-checked
- A difficult incident is worked on by pulling several specialists from different teams into the same session at the same time; once it becomes clear who is best placed to continue, the others step away. What is this technique called? machine-checked
- Why does an organisation define a separate procedure for major incidents rather than handling them exactly like all other incidents? machine-checked
- A support team routinely fixes incidents by phone and updates the incident record only with the word 'fixed'. What is the most significant consequence of this? machine-checked