The Professor was recently asked about the following very
interesting situation.
An OLA is an agreement between an IT service provider and another part of the same organization and underpins an SLA. Any arrangements that the service desk has with other parts of the same organization (including the IT organization) would be reflected in OLAs. So if, for example, the IT desktop support or network support teams, or a non-IT department such as Facilities, provide second or third level support to the service desk, how those teams support the services delivered by the service desk would be reflected in OLAs. Those OLAs would unpin the SLAs that the service desk has with its customers. If an external supplier such as a software publisher also provides second or third level support to that service desk, how that company supports the services delivered by the service desk would be reflected in an underpinning contract. Those underpinning contracts would unpin the SLAs that the service desk has with its customers.
The professor was further asked…
If you have outsourced your service desk, you would have a contract with the supplier of those services. That contact will contain terms that speak to the levels of service that you have agreed upon, and so may in practice be referred to as an ‘SLA,’ but it must also include the language that makes it a legally binding agreement. It is therefore, technically, a contract. Before signing on the dotted line, however, it is important to ensure that the contract reflects terms that adequately unpin any SLAs that you have with your customers.
The Professor would be happy to debate this topic further as it presents some very interesting situations. What do you think?
In my organization, we have a service desk that is not part of the main IT department. Since we are a service desk solution provider, it is actually in one of our businesses units. So our IT department has chosen to take advantage of that in-place service desk to effectively also be the service desk for internal employees. Is this a situation where an operational level agreement (OLA) applies? Or are the “parts” of the internal organization too far apart and a service level agreement (SLA) is more appropriate? I think the idea is that the OLA applies to different internal groups within IT? Is that true?Let’s first define these terms and then apply them to this situation. An SLA is an agreement between a service provider and a customer. In the case of the service desk that is in one of the company’s business units, that service desk is a Type I (internal) service provider. Since ITIL is non-prescriptive on organizational structures and focuses more on the value chain concept, it does not matter ‘where’ the service desk is located. The service desk is serving as a function and helping to provide IT services to the business, therefore the agreement on the services that the service desk provides to the business would be reflected in a SLA. In other words, the IT organization is a customer of the service desk, hence the need for an SLA. This is an important concept as SLAs document not only the expected service level targets; they also specify the responsibilities of both the service provider and the customer. An important customer responsibility is that the customer must be willing to fund the agreed upon level of service. In other words, the IT organization as the customer in this case, must be willing to ‘pay’ for the services it is receiving from the service desk. This is particularly important in this situation as without adequate funding, the service desk may not have the resources needed to satisfy both its external and internal customers…putting the business at risk either way.
An OLA is an agreement between an IT service provider and another part of the same organization and underpins an SLA. Any arrangements that the service desk has with other parts of the same organization (including the IT organization) would be reflected in OLAs. So if, for example, the IT desktop support or network support teams, or a non-IT department such as Facilities, provide second or third level support to the service desk, how those teams support the services delivered by the service desk would be reflected in OLAs. Those OLAs would unpin the SLAs that the service desk has with its customers. If an external supplier such as a software publisher also provides second or third level support to that service desk, how that company supports the services delivered by the service desk would be reflected in an underpinning contract. Those underpinning contracts would unpin the SLAs that the service desk has with its customers.
The professor was further asked…
Also, in another situation if you actually have a service desk that has been outsourced, then you as the IT provider would have the underpinning contract with that supplier, but from the supplier perspective, they would have an SLA with you?The concept of ‘SLA’ is widely used to formalize service provider/customer relationships, both internally and externally. A contract comes into play when an enforceable commitment is required. These contracts are often referred to as ‘SLAs’ but the important distinction is that contracts are legally binding agreements
If you have outsourced your service desk, you would have a contract with the supplier of those services. That contact will contain terms that speak to the levels of service that you have agreed upon, and so may in practice be referred to as an ‘SLA,’ but it must also include the language that makes it a legally binding agreement. It is therefore, technically, a contract. Before signing on the dotted line, however, it is important to ensure that the contract reflects terms that adequately unpin any SLAs that you have with your customers.
The Professor would be happy to debate this topic further as it presents some very interesting situations. What do you think?
Comments