In managing service levels, we work with the company to define and set realistic expectations for our services and the subsequent provision of these services to the company. We strive to implement and achieve realistic and collaborative service goals while measuring our progress and identifying areas where we can improve. When a Service Level Manager Business is required to offer a level service (SLA) for an end-to-end IS/IT service, it will only sign that ALS after entering into an operating level agreement with the IS/IT team or service for each system or component used to provide that service. This document contains a model for such an operating level agreement (OLA) for databases containing agreed values and, for qs purposes, measures taken to reduce the likelihood of non-compliance with these agreed values. Too often only availability (z.B 99.9%) is linked to an ALS or OLA, but a true OLA contains a complete list of all services (tasks) that are provided, to what extension and with what quality and defined, which are part of the “standard support” and which are charged in addition. This mercury model contains a complete list of tasks provided by System DBa. If the project team does not request (and pay for) certain (advanced) services, the author proposes to activate the “NO” box (preferably with a declaration) to remove them from the agreement. This avoids discussions about “we weren`t aware that this is not included,” which usually begin after some unpleasant things have happened. In addition, a template is provided for a (monthly) service level report (SLR).
An Operational Level Agreement (OLA) defines interdependent relationships to support a Service Level Agreement (SLA).  The agreement outlines the responsibilities of each internal support group to other support groups, including the process and timing of the delivery of their services. The objective of the OLA is to provide a clear, concise and measurable description of the service provider`s internal assistance relationships. If the yard determines that this is a P2 incident, customer and IT support knows that it has eight hours of business to resolve the incident based on the expectations and objectives set out in ALS. Well, in the world of first contact resolution (FCR), all this is good and beautiful; But if we have to degenerate this ticket into an L2 group, what will happen? Is the time for dissolution changing? No no! There are eight hours left, and here is the challenge for many organizations: how do we know that L2 is doing its business within the same time parameters, and how to ensure that we meet or exceed the levels of service defined in ALS? For many organizations, that`s where it all falls apart. Delays slip, SLAs are violated, and expectations are not met, as L2 often works on many other things; In addition, they are one step away from the customer and often do not see the largest picture. The Service Level Management Process (MSM) is responsible for finding a realistic trade-off between the needs, expectations and cost of associated services, so that they are accepted by customers and the IT organization. The objective is also to ensure that all existing IT services will benefit from an agreed level of IT service and that future services will be provided for achievable purposes. Service level management is also responsible for ensuring that all appropriate agreements are in place at the operational level and support contracts for the supervision of creditors and other groups. If the underlying OLA (s) do not exist, it is often very difficult for organizations to go back and enter into agreements between support teams to provide the OLA.