DS01 Process Description

DS01: Service Level Management

1. Description

Establishment and maintenance of service-level agreements which formalize the performance criteria against which the quantity and quality of service will be measured.

2. Control Objectives

SLA Framework: define a framework to promote the definition of formal SLAs including minimal content guidelines: availability, reliability, performance, capacity for growth, levels of support provided to users, disaster recovery/contingency planning, security, minimum acceptable level of satisfactorily delivered system functionality, restrictions (limits on the amount of work), service charges, central print facilities (availability), central print distribution, and change procedures. Users and the information services function should have a written agreement which describes the service level in qualitative and quantitative terms. The agreement defines the responsibilities of both parties. The information services function must offer the agreed quality and quantity of service and the users must constrain the demands they place upon the service within the agreed limits.
Aspects of Service Level Agreements: Agree on the aspects that a service level agreement should have. The service level agreement should cover at least the following aspects: availability, reliability, performance, capacity for growth, levels of support provided to users, disaster recovery/contingency planning, security, minimum acceptable level of satisfactorily delivered system functionality, restrictions (limits on the amount of work), service charges, central print facilities (availability), central print distribution and change procedures,
Performance Procedures: Write and maintain procedures to ensure that the manner of and responsibilities for performance governing relations (e.g., non-disclosure agreements) between all the involved parties are established, coordinated, maintained and communicated to all affected departments,
Monitoring and Reporting: monitoring and reporting on the achievement of the specified service performance criteria and all problems encountered during processing. The monitoring statistics should be analyzed on a timely basis. Appropriate corrective action should be taken and failures should be investigated,
Review of SLAs and Contracts: regular review process for service level agreements and underpinning contracts with third party service providers,
Chargeable Items: Provisions for chargeable items should be included in the service level agreements to make trade-offs possible on service levels versus costs,
Service Improvement Program: Ensure that users and service level managers regularly agree on a service improvement program for pursuing cost-justified improvements to the service level.

3. Key Goal Indicators

Sign-off by strategic business unit that service levels are aligned with key business objectives
Customer satisfaction that the service level meets expectations
Actual to budget cost ratio in line with service levels
Percent of all critical business processes relying on IT covered by service level agreements
Percent of service level agreements reviewed at the agreed interval or following major change
Service level partners sign off service level monitoring information provided
Percent of IT services which meet service level agreements

4. Key Performance Indicators

Time lag of resolution of a service level change request
Frequency of customer satisfaction surveys
Time lag to resolve a service level issue
Number of times that root cause analysis of service level procedure and subsequent resolution is completed within required period
Significance of amount of additional funding needed to deliver the defined service level

5. Critical Success Factors

Service levels are expressed in end-user business terms, wherever possible
Root cause analysis is performed when service levels breaches occur
Skills and tools are available to provide useful and timely service level information
The reliance of critical business processes on IT is defined and is covered by service level agreements
IT management accountabilities and responsibilities are linked to service levels
The IT organisation can identify sources of cost variances
Detailed and consistent explanations for cost variances are provided
A system for tracking and following individual changes is available

6. Service Maturity Variations

0 Non-existent	Management has not recognised the need for a process for defining service levels. Accountabilities and responsibilities for monitoring them are not assigned.
1 (Initial/Ad Hoc)	There is awareness of the need to manage service levels, but the process is informal and reactive. The responsibility and accountability for monitoring performance is informally defined. Performance measurements are qualitative, with imprecisely defined goals. Performance reporting is infrequent and inconsistent.
2 (Repeatable but Intuitive)	There are agreed-upon service level agreements, but they are informal and not revisited. Service level reporting is incomplete, irrelevant or misleading and dependent on the skills and initiative of individual managers. A service level coordinator is appointed with defined responsibilities, but not sufficient authority. The service level agreement compliance process is voluntary and not enforced.
3 (Defined Process)	Responsibilities are well defined, but with discretionary authority. The service level agreement development process is in place with checkpoints for reassessing service levels and customer satisfaction. Service levels criteria are defined and agreed upon with users, with an increased level of standardisation. Service level shortfalls are identified, but resolution planning is still informal. The relationship between the funding provided and the expected service levels is being increasingly formalised. Service level is increasingly based on industry benchmarks and may not address organisation-specific needs.
4 (Managed and Measurable)	Service levels are increasingly defined in the system requirements definition phase and incorporated into the design of the application and operational environments. Customer satisfaction is routinely measured and assessed. Performance measures are increasingly reflecting enduser needs, rather than only IT goals. User service levels measurement criteria are becoming standardised and reflective of industry norms. Root cause analysis is performed when service levels are not met. The reporting system for monitoring service levels is becoming increasingly automated. Operational and financial risks associated with not meeting agreed-upon service levels are defined and clearly understood.
5 Optimized	Optimized Service levels are continuously reevaluated to ensure alignment of IT and business objectives, while taking advantage of technology advances and improvements in product price/performance ratios. All service level processes are subject to continuous improvement processes. Criteria for defining service levels are defined based on business criticality and include availability, reliability, performance, growth capacity, user support, continuity planning and security considerations. Customer satisfaction levels are monitored and enforced. Expected service levels are evaluated against industry norms, but also reflect the specific strategic goals of business units. IT management has the resources and accountability needed to meet service level performance targets and the executive compensation is structured to provide incentives for meeting the organisation goals.