Service Commitment SLA

[zuhaili]

We are trying to update the SLA Definition by using Service commitment. I have a few queries to ask regarding it right now. We measure SLA by three bands (1,2 and 3). Performance band 1 would be >= 90%. Performance band 2 would be between <= 85% and < 90%. Performance Band 3 would be < 85%.

1. How do we cater for Performance band 2, where the SLA Percentage is between 2 different percentages?
2. Is there a way that we can create 1 Service commitment with multiple SLA Definition?

[Mathew Hillyard]

Hi @zuhaili 

The plugin "Service Portfolio Management SLA Commitments" allows you to choose a Type of SLA, which gives adds a field to choose a related SLA Definition. It would make no sense to have a single commitment with multiple SLA definitions - it's one measurable commitment. You can however relate multiple commitments to an SLA Definition. This allows you to create multiple commitments, e.g.  "85%-90%" and ">90%" and relate both of them to an SLA Definition. However, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve. Could you explain what you are trying to do?

I hope this helps!

Mat

[zuhaili]

Hi @Mathew Hillyard, 

I'm trying to achieve the possibility of having 3 commitments only, and each commitment with multiple SLAs as that is how it is measured in the current environment that I am in. There is Band 1, Band 2 and Band 3 with each being a sum of all the Incident SLAs with different SLA Percentage ranges. 

For now, I have configured it based OOTB, same to what you have mentioned, but I am wondering how one could measure it if the SLA Percentage is within a range and if SLA Commitment can cater for the above use-case.

Thanks, 
Zul

[Mathew Hillyard]

Hi @zuhaili 

The Commitment record is usually intended to represent a single value level of service for a Service offering, linked to one or more SLA Definitions that support the commitment.

However, in theory you can name the Commitment whatever you like, so long as it is backed with the appropriate supporting SLA Definitions.

What concerns me is that you mention bands based on the sum of the Incident SLAs - is this SLA Definitions or the actual SLA percentages (results) achieved? If the latter then that doesn't make sense. You define the commitment first, then measure progress; you don't set a commitment based on what has been achieved, but maybe I am not understanding your use case.

It might help if you could share your current design for the SLA Definitions to understand how you want the results to look?

BR
Mat

[zuhaili]

Hi Mat, 

I believe I now understand the correct approach. Please correct me if my understanding is inaccurate.

Based on your explanation, it appears that I have been approaching this in reverse: I have been defining the metrics to measure and then constructing the framework accordingly, when I should instead be establishing the commitments first. Subsequently, I can utilize the SLA Results table to measure the requirements necessary to meet the respective performance bands previously outlined.

Given that I am measuring three Performance Bands for Incidents, and Incident SLAs comprise three distinct Priorities and two SLA types (Response and Resolution), I should therefore implement only six Service Commitments—one for each SLA—rather than proceeding with my initial approach of creating 18 Service Commitments to address all three Performance Bands. Is this correct?

Best Regards,
Zul