Click here, to download this white paper

The SLA will also cover the methods of managing itself, including procedures for coping with changes in demand or handling unanticipated exceptions. It will also formalise the methods and content of service requests and performance reports.

“ The very formality of the relationship is itself a benefit.”

SLA’s often fail in some IT environments, mainly because the user side does not play an active part. If the service is ‘good enough’ one can find that the users ignore it, only getting involved when it is perceived to be failing. Paradoxically, this often means that an SLA is unworkable when the service is adequate because it is one-sided – so there is no documented basis for service planning and absence of planning can cause that eventual failure.

In fact the very formality that must be introduced into the service relationship to reflect its essentially commercial nature, is itself a benefit. When so many IT service departments are reactive and governed as much by the corporate rank of service users as much as by genuine need, the discipline of a managed service puts reactivity in its place – as an element, but not the core of provision. With the governance of managed service, reactivity becomes a structured part of the process, rather than, as is too often the case in some user support groups, simply the behaviour of individuals in the group. This is because the SLA tells both sides how much reactivity is enough and where it should be applied.

The inclusion in the SLA of a methodology for changing the agreement itself is essential to ensuring that the service does not become too rigid. Surveys have noted that organisations with a managed service tend to use the service less often then they tended to use its internal precursor.

This is often to do with design – one of the targets may have been to reduce downtime or stoppages – and one also must take into account that company staff become more aware of the costs of the service when it is provided by an external party, so they are more cautious about its use. But the anecdotes also tell a tale of a lack of flexibility enjoyed prior to the arrival of the managed service. If flexibility is needed, it should be noted and included in service provision. It can be done.

Overcoming the Pitfalls
This need for governance in the form of an SLA hints at one of the possible pitfalls of the managed service – for to be successful, there must be a clear indicator of how much service is to be delivered. Without that, client-side expectations cannot be managed, and the supplier side cannot plan its resources effectively.

It is here that some managed service arrangements have come into difficulty – the host company may not have accurate measurement of the support workload and so underestimates the size of the need. The supplier may make the mistake of underestimating so as to come in with an attractively low bid. Shortly after implementation, demand may exceed provision and the whole arrangement gradually begins to assume the shape of a pear.

Unfortunately, the reaction of some hosts has been to assume that the provider has been unable to meet demand and so tries to get more involved in what is happening on the other side of the wall. This becomes an interference in the supplier-side management, and this can cause the partnership to slip back down the scale towards body-shop, losing the advantages of managed service in the process.

A Thing of Beauty?
There must be accurate measurement, not only at the outset, but in the design of the schedules in the SLA and onward throughout the life of the partnership through the constant ministrations of the Client- and Supplier-Side Managers. Reports must always be more than just interesting – they must contain real information to which managers can respond usefully.
 
“ Professional and procedural, while still able to deal with exception.”

Continue...