Service level agreement: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "A service-level agreement (fondly known to all as an '''SLA''' — that is an ''ess-ell-aye'', not a “slah”) defines the level of service you expect from a vendor,...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A [[service | A [[service level agreement]] (“fondly”<ref>Few people who have ever been party to one look upon an SLA with any kind of fondness</ref> known as an '''[[SLA]]''' — that is an ''ess-ell-aye'', not a “slah”) defines the level of service you expect from a vendor, laying out the [[metric]]s by which the service is measured, and your remedies and [[Penalty clause|penalties]] should agreed-on service levels not be achieved. | ||
''It is a critical component of any vendor contract.'' | ''It is a critical component of any vendor contract.'' | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Thus, in a stroke, the [[SLA]] demonstrates the folly of [[outsourcing]]: an [[Survivor|internal resource]] may be expensive, truculent, workshy and in need of holidays and a pension, but (at least in theory) to get a decent job out of her you don’t need an [[SLA]]<ref>This won’t stop [[middle management]] trying to impose one, of course.</ref>: the better the job {{sex|she}} does, the more the bonus she’ll get!<ref>IN THEORY. OK folks I know it doesn’t really work like that but the collective is often gripped with a madness a crowdish delusion that it is somehow different.<ref> | Thus, in a stroke, the [[SLA]] demonstrates the folly of [[outsourcing]]: an [[Survivor|internal resource]] may be expensive, truculent, workshy and in need of holidays and a pension, but (at least in theory) to get a decent job out of her you don’t need an [[SLA]]<ref>This won’t stop [[middle management]] trying to impose one, of course.</ref>: the better the job {{sex|she}} does, the more the bonus she’ll get!<ref>IN THEORY. OK folks I know it doesn’t really work like that but the collective is often gripped with a madness a crowdish delusion that it is somehow different.<ref> | ||
But once you have outsourced the role to a free agent patrolling the free market, that calculus changes. Now your | But once you have outsourced the role to a free agent patrolling the free market, that calculus, however delusional it may be, changes. Now your starting assumption is that your agent will do as little as he humanly can to comply with the blackest of the letters of your agreement. Anything more is economically irrational (so sayeth the Smiths, Friedmen and Hayeks of this world). Your service provider has agreed a fixed fee for its services, it is his sole and constant interest to expend as few resources as are humanly possible to earn that fee. | ||
The difference between the fee and those resources is his profit margin. This, and only this, is what he turns up for. | The difference between the fee and those resources is his profit margin. A free agent is exclusively focused on what it does ''not'' have to do. This, and only this, is what he turns up for. | ||
If you | Thus, you must have an SLA. You must stipulate in horrific detail exactly how, when, with what implements and at what rate, your service provider must provide the services. You should expect it to do not one micron more than that. | ||
If you outsource a cleaning contract for a five-thousand seat tower block in the CMD, assume your service provider will roll up with one minimum-waged fifteen year-old, a mop and a plastic bucket UNLESS YOU HAVE AGREED OTHERWISE IN AN SLA. | |||
{{seealso}} | |||
*[[Outsourcing]] | |||
*[[Management consultant]] | |||
{{ref}} | |||
Revision as of 13:38, 6 June 2018
A service level agreement (“fondly”[1] known as an SLA — that is an ess-ell-aye, not a “slah”) defines the level of service you expect from a vendor, laying out the metrics by which the service is measured, and your remedies and penalties should agreed-on service levels not be achieved.
It is a critical component of any vendor contract.
Thus, in a stroke, the SLA demonstrates the folly of outsourcing: an internal resource may be expensive, truculent, workshy and in need of holidays and a pension, but (at least in theory) to get a decent job out of her you don’t need an SLA[2]: the better the job she does, the more the bonus she’ll get!<ref>IN THEORY. OK folks I know it doesn’t really work like that but the collective is often gripped with a madness a crowdish delusion that it is somehow different.<ref>
But once you have outsourced the role to a free agent patrolling the free market, that calculus, however delusional it may be, changes. Now your starting assumption is that your agent will do as little as he humanly can to comply with the blackest of the letters of your agreement. Anything more is economically irrational (so sayeth the Smiths, Friedmen and Hayeks of this world). Your service provider has agreed a fixed fee for its services, it is his sole and constant interest to expend as few resources as are humanly possible to earn that fee.
The difference between the fee and those resources is his profit margin. A free agent is exclusively focused on what it does not have to do. This, and only this, is what he turns up for.
Thus, you must have an SLA. You must stipulate in horrific detail exactly how, when, with what implements and at what rate, your service provider must provide the services. You should expect it to do not one micron more than that.
If you outsource a cleaning contract for a five-thousand seat tower block in the CMD, assume your service provider will roll up with one minimum-waged fifteen year-old, a mop and a plastic bucket UNLESS YOU HAVE AGREED OTHERWISE IN AN SLA.
See also
References
- ↑ Few people who have ever been party to one look upon an SLA with any kind of fondness
- ↑ This won’t stop middle management trying to impose one, of course.