DS1  Define and Manage Service Levels
Control over the IT process of ...
defining and managing service levels
    with the business goal
    to establish a common understanding of the level of service required
     
      is enabled by
      • the establishment of service-level agreements which formalise the performance criteria against which the quantity and quality of service will be measured

        and takes consideration

        • Critical Success Factors that leverage
        • specific IT Resources and is measured by
        • Key Performance Indicators

Record of Assessment
Assignment ID:  * Enter Name: *
Reference Code:  * Enter Location: * Tel. Num: *
Enter Full e-mail Address: *
  Control Objective:

Define and manage service levels. 
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Selected
Status
Description
*
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.
*
*
*
*
*
*
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
*
*
*
*
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
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
  Conclusions:
* Non-existent 
Management has not recognised the need for a process for defining service levels. Accountabilities and responsibilities for monitoring them are not assigned.
* Optimised 
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.
* 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 end-user 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.
* 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.
* 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 co-ordinator is appointed with defined responsibilities, but not sufficient authority. The service level agreement compliance process is voluntary and not enforced. 
* Initial / Adhoc 
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.
Settings will expire on: 

(Do NOT edit.) Field set by Form.
Save and E-mail this form. (Saves only "*" fields & sends E-mail to address above):


Maintenance Functions

Note: If using Netscape on a Macintosh you may have to submit twice, the first will fail, or you can push the "Save Changes and/or Set New Expiration" then Submit.