Service Level Agreement?

As it becomes something that is generally considered to be merely a measure of operator deduced risk as opposed to insurance against failure - SLA (Service Level Agreement) appears to be making its way down the tree - clambering out of the Enterprise to the shared and entry level solutions.

Maybe its a sign of it overdue expiration in terms of 'useful' that it is so often finding its way into a conversation that is being driven by the price of a service as opposed to needs or deliverables.

Service Level Requirements (SLR) on the other hand are still very much alive and kicking - it is after all a bar to entry, a minimum requirement, a functional requirement of any process, service, or delivery. However nine times out of ten the people requesting an SLA are not even sure of what they require short of "always up" / "cost less" / "robust" / "secure".... "how long is that piece of string (or Cheese as I once heard mentioned)?"

If you ever.... EVER find yourself heading into that SLA cul-de-sac... ask yourself why?

If it is by means of reclaiming real or perceived losses - then its entirely possible you have backed the wrong horse. Its not a tool to beat the provider with, it is not an assurance of delivery to circumvent proper architecture, engineering or best practice.

If you find yourself on a shared platform, with price as your primary driver, SLA has no place in that conversation.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *