Service governance and SLA management
Several sites, several suppliers and a different report from each of them. Service governance puts one set of figures, one review cycle and one point of accountability on top of that, so you can see what you are paying for.
Everyone reports, nobody compares
Organisations with more than one site usually end up with more than one supplier, and each of them measures in its own way. One counts tickets, another counts hours, a third only reports on what it agreed itself. All the reports are correct on their own terms, and together they say nothing about whether your users are actually being helped.
Service governance is the layer above that. We define what gets measured, in the same way for every site and every supplier, and we hold the review cycle in which those figures lead to decisions. Not an extra report on the pile, but the one that replaces the pile.
This becomes worthwhile from the moment you run several locations or several suppliers, or when you have to account for IT to a board, an owner or a client. One office and one supplier? Then the SLA in your Managed IT agreement already covers it, and you do not need this on top.
What we take on
- One definition of the figures. The same measurement across every site and supplier, so the numbers can actually be compared.
- SLA management. We track the agreements, flag what is not being met and take that up with the supplier instead of leaving it to you.
- Supplier coordination. One point of contact for the chain, including for parties that are not us.
- A fixed review cycle. A monthly report and a quarterly review with a fixed agenda and decisions that get an owner.
- Change and risk oversight. Which changes are planned, what they touch and what the fallback is, recorded before they run.
- Independent of who delivers. We also report on our own performance. If we miss the mark, that is in the same report.
The structure follows the same practice areas an ITIL or ISO/IEC 20000 auditor would look for – service level management, supplier management, continual improvement – because that structure is what makes the reporting defensible to an auditor, not because we hold that certification ourselves.
IT service management: when this is for you, and when it is not
Service governance exists for organisations with several suppliers, several sites, or both. That is where the problem this service solves appears: four parties each supplying their own figures, each on their own rhythm, and an incident that falls between two contracts and therefore belongs to nobody.
If you have one supplier and one location, this is not what you need, the agreement in your management contract covers it and governance would be a layer without work. When a smaller business grows into several sites or a second supplier, that is the point at which it starts to pay.
- One set of figures across suppliers The same definitions for everyone, so availability means the same thing at one supplier as at another.
- An incident belonging to nobody is ours We take charge of a report that falls between two contracts.
- A review cycle that keeps running A fixed meeting with the same figures, so agreements get met rather than repeated.
From scattered reports to one review cycle
Setting this up takes about a quarter. After that it runs on a fixed rhythm.
Inventory
We map out which agreements exist, with whom, and what is measured now. That usually surfaces the first gaps on its own.
One measurement framework
We agree what is measured, how and how often, so figures from different suppliers become comparable.
Reporting set up
The monthly report is built once and produced automatically after that, so time goes into the conversation rather than the spreadsheet.
The review runs
Every quarter around the table: what went well, what did not, what changes, and who picks it up before the next round.
One report you can take to your board
Governance only works when the figures survive a critical question. These are the components you get.
- One monthly reportAll sites and suppliers in one document, in figures that mean the same thing everywhere.
- SLA performance per agreementAchieved or not, with the reason and the action, instead of a green tick without a story.
- Trends over timeNot just this month, but the direction. That is what turns a report into a basis for decisions.
- Escalations trackedWhat was escalated, to whom, how long it took and how it ended.
- Change calendarWhich changes are planned across sites, so two suppliers do not touch the same chain in the same week.
- Risk registerKnown risks with owner, impact and the agreed handling, reviewed every quarter.
- Cost visibilityWhat is spent per service and per site, so a discussion about budget is about facts.
- Decisions with an ownerEvery review closes with actions, an owner and a date, checked at the next round.
Governance is not extra process, it is fewer surprises
The point is not to add a management layer. The point is that a problem shows up in a report before it shows up in a phone call from a site manager.
- Signals before incidentsRising handling times or a recurring category say something before they become an outage. Those trends are in the report.
- One agenda, every quarterThe same structure every time, so the review is not a discussion about what should be on the agenda.
- The awkward figures tooA report that only shows green is not a report. What was missed is in it, with what is being done about it.
- Accountable in one placeIf something goes wrong in the chain, you have one party to address, including when the cause sits with another supplier.
What this sits on top of
Governance is the layer above delivery. These services are what it reports on.
Questions we get about this
The ones that come up most, answered briefly.
What is this, in plain words?
Keeping a grip on suppliers and agreements without having to chase it yourself. Everybody reports, but nobody compares: each party delivers its own figures in its own format. We turn that into one report you can put in front of your board.
Do we need this with only one supplier?
Then the gain is smaller, and we say so. This becomes interesting once there are several parties, several locations, or agreements nobody quite oversees any more. With one supplier and one site, governance already sits inside the ordinary management.
Is this another layer of meetings?
No, fewer if anything. Governance is not an extra process, it is fewer surprises. It comes down to one set of figures, a fixed review cycle and one point of contact, instead of separate conversations per supplier where the same ground is covered again.
Does this work if the suppliers are not yours?
Yes, and that is usually the situation. We steer on the agreements that exist, regardless of who carries them out. Where an SLA turns out not to be tenable we say so, including when it concerns our own service.
What reporting do we get?
A monthly report with what came in, what was resolved, what is still open and why, and which tickets keep recurring. That last figure is the most important one in the report: a problem that comes back fifteen times a month costs more than fixing it properly once. The report is about the service and not about us, so it also states what did not go well.
Is there a penalty if an SLA is missed?
There can be, and we do not shy away from it, but it is rarely what fixes the problem. A penalty of a few per cent of the monthly fee does not offset a day of standstill, and a supplier managing to penalties will word the agreements so they always meet them. What does work is an agreement you can keep, with the coverage window written honestly beside it, and reporting that shows whether it was met.
How often do we sit down together?
Monthly on the numbers, quarterly on the direction. That quarterly meeting is not about tickets but about what is coming in the year ahead: equipment due for replacement, licences expiring, a site being added. Without that conversation management becomes a series of separate incidents and you only see the bill when something falls over.
Deeper into this subject
Pages that work out a single question from this service.
Our own certifications
ITproposal is certified for ISO 9001 (quality), ISO/IEC 27001 (information security), ISO 14001 (environment) and Kiwa NEN 4400-1 (labour hire and secondment). That says something about how we work and how we have our own processes assessed; it is not a certification you inherit from us.
See what you are actually getting
In a half-hour conversation we go through your current agreements and reports. After that you know which figures are missing to steer on.
Practical IT knowledge in your inbox
New guides on management, security and the workplace, written by the people doing the work. No sales talk, and you can unsubscribe in one click.