This is a Service Level Agreement Metric Dashboard (Diamond) Report, it is one of reports that Balanced Scorecard Designer can generate for Service Level Agreement KPI. With this software you can also design your own scorecards, KPIs and metrics.

Service Level Agreement Scorecard

Report includes: 2 day(s), from 21.09.2009 to 22.09.2009

Name

Start value

End value

Dynamic

Contains

Service Level Agreement Scorecard

42,9 %

58,29 %

+ 15,39 %

Structure Perspective	(44,2%, 5,86%)
Usage Perspective	(60,7%, 23,13%)
Quality Perspective	(56,5%, 14,87%)
Delivery Perspective	(77,5%, 18,6%)

Graph for Service Level Agreement Scorecard

Data for Service Level Agreement Scorecard

Dates	Value
21.09.2009	42,9
22.09.2009	58,29

ď»ż

Structure Perspective

Name

Start value

End value

Dynamic

Parent

Contains

Structure Perspective

38,37 %

44,23 %

+ 5,86%

Service Level Agreement Scorecard

Indicators

Transparency level

Aspects covered

‘Fully documented’ SLAs

SLAs with an assigned manager *

* - Information for this metric is limited in sample report Description This group of indicators is for evaluating the manner in which SLA has been configured by the involved parties.

Graph for Structure Perspective

Data for Structure Perspective

Dates	Value	Weight
21.09.2009	38,37	3
22.09.2009	44,23	3

ď»ż

Transparency level

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Transparency level	3,511	6,562	+ 3,051	Score	Maximize	Structure Perspective

Description Value to this KPI can be assigned by looking at the extent to which transparency has been adopted in forming the agreement. A 1-10 numbered scale is a beneficial way to achieve this.

Graph for Transparency level

Data for Transparency level

Dates	Weight	Min	Max	Value
21.09.2009	3	1	10	3,511
22.09.2009	3	1	10	6,562

ď»ż

Aspects covered

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Aspects covered	95,4	90,08	-5,32	%	Maximize	Structure Perspective

Description There can be several areas that need to be covered for creating a complete and true agreement. The maximum is the number of aspects spanned, greater are the chances of it being successful in meeting the aims.

Graph for Aspects covered

Data for Aspects covered

Dates	Weight	Min	Max	Value
21.09.2009	2	90	100	95,4
22.09.2009	2	90	100	90,08

ď»ż

‘Fully documented’ SLAs

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	‘Fully documented’ SLAs	79,78	94,57	+ 14,79	%	Maximize	Structure Perspective

Description This metric will be equal to the percentage of SLAs that were documented completely.

Graph for ‘Fully documented’ SLAs

Data for ‘Fully documented’ SLAs

Dates	Weight	Min	Max	Value
21.09.2009	3	70	100	79,78
22.09.2009	3	70	100	94,57

ď»ż

Usage Perspective

Name

Start value

End value

Dynamic

Parent

Contains

Usage Perspective

37,6 %

60,73 %

+ 23,13%

Service Level Agreement Scorecard

Indicators

Accountability Index

Functional Aptness

Customer Satisfaction

Improvement level attained *

* - Information for this metric is limited in sample report Description This collectino of metrics will help in gauging the usage in as close manner as possible.

Graph for Usage Perspective

Data for Usage Perspective

Dates	Value	Weight
21.09.2009	37,6	3
22.09.2009	60,73	3

ď»ż

Accountability Index

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Accountability Index	8,695	7,498	-1,197	Score	Maximize	Usage Perspective

Description This indicator is for knowing how far the agreement has succeeded in increasing the accountability ‘to’ and ‘by’ involved parties. A scale of 1-10 is again of help in this case.

Graph for Accountability Index

Data for Accountability Index

Dates	Weight	Min	Max	Value
21.09.2009	2	1	10	8,695
22.09.2009	2	1	10	7,498

ď»ż

Functional Aptness

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Functional Aptness	89,4	84,84	-4,56	%	Maximize	Usage Perspective

Description This KPI is to know about the functional suitability of the agreement. The value can be had in percentage terms.

Graph for Functional Aptness

Data for Functional Aptness

Dates	Weight	Min	Max	Value
21.09.2009	3	80	100	89,4
22.09.2009	3	80	100	84,84

ď»ż

Customer Satisfaction

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Customer Satisfaction	78,97	93,58	+ 14,61	%	Maximize	Usage Perspective

Description This is the ultimate reflection of the level to which agreement has succeeded in providing customers what they need.

Graph for Customer Satisfaction

Data for Customer Satisfaction

Dates	Weight	Min	Max	Value
21.09.2009	2	70	100	78,97
22.09.2009	2	70	100	93,58

ď»ż

Quality Perspective

Name

Start value

End value

Dynamic

Parent

Contains

Quality Perspective

41,65 %

56,52 %

+ 14,87%

Service Level Agreement Scorecard

Indicators

Unmatched agreements proportion

Re-negotiation ratio

Modification level

Fraction of ‘on-time’ SLA reviews *

* - Information for this metric is limited in sample report Description This group of metrics is for knowing about the quality that is produced at the end.

Graph for Quality Perspective

Data for Quality Perspective

Dates	Value	Weight
21.09.2009	41,65	2
22.09.2009	56,52	2

ď»ż

Unmatched agreements proportion

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Unmatched agreements proportion	4,77	4,09	-0,68	%	Maximize	Quality Perspective

Description This is to know about the instances where agreements were not confirmed.

Graph for Unmatched agreements proportion

Data for Unmatched agreements proportion

Dates	Weight	Min	Max	Value
21.09.2009	2	0	10	4,77
22.09.2009	2	0	10	4,09

ď»ż

Re-negotiation ratio

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Re-negotiation ratio	0,93	3,675	+ 2,745	%	Maximize	Quality Perspective

Description This is to know about the fraction of agreements that are in re-negotiation.

Graph for Re-negotiation ratio

Data for Re-negotiation ratio

Dates	Weight	Min	Max	Value
21.09.2009	2	0	15	0,93
22.09.2009	2	0	15	3,675

ď»ż

Modification level

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Modification level	7,85	8,64	+ 0,79	%	Maximize	Quality Perspective

Description This is equal to the proportion of agreements that require modifications.

Graph for Modification level

Data for Modification level

Dates	Weight	Min	Max	Value
21.09.2009	3	0	10	7,85
22.09.2009	3	0	10	8,64

ď»ż

Delivery Perspective

Name

Start value

End value

Dynamic

Parent

Contains

Delivery Perspective

58,9 %

77,5 %

+ 18,6%

Service Level Agreement Scorecard

Indicators

Cost: Benefits Ratio

Poor delivery proportion

Drop in ‘breaches instances’

Pre-set standards meeting index *

Backlog size *

* - Information for this metric is limited in sample report Description This group of indicators is for measuring the delivery aspects of SLAs (Service Level Agreements).

Graph for Delivery Perspective

Data for Delivery Perspective

Dates	Value	Weight
21.09.2009	58,9	2
22.09.2009	77,5	2

ď»ż

Cost: Benefits Ratio

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Cost: Benefits Ratio	0,1524	0,0952	-0,0572	%	Minimize	Delivery Perspective

Description This is to know about the extent to which costs and benefits that were borne and those that came out of it have been realized.

Graph for Cost: Benefits Ratio

Data for Cost: Benefits Ratio

Dates	Weight	Min	Max	Value
21.09.2009	2	0	0,4	0,1524
22.09.2009	2	0	0,4	0,0952

ď»ż

Poor delivery proportion

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Poor delivery proportion	0,44	0,15	-0,29	%	Minimize	Delivery Perspective

Description This metric is to gather information about the extent to which the SLAs gave ‘poor delivery’. The value can be had by taking an ‘opinion poll’ from the involved employees regarding the total SLAs that the organization has been involved with so far.

Graph for Poor delivery proportion

Data for Poor delivery proportion

Dates	Weight	Min	Max	Value
21.09.2009	2	0	10	0,44
22.09.2009	2	0	10	0,15

ď»ż

Drop in ‘breaches instances’

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Drop in ‘breaches instances’	49,84	49,44	-0,4	%	Maximize	Delivery Perspective

Description This indicator will be equal to the dip experienced in breaches so far in the agreements that were signed by the organization.

Graph for Drop in ‘breaches instances’

Data for Drop in ‘breaches instances’

Dates	Weight	Min	Max	Value
21.09.2009	2	20	100	49,84
22.09.2009	2	20	100	49,44

Created by: AKS-Labs
Report created with Balanced Scorecard Designer at 17.09.2009 12:52:04