Service Level Agreement Scorecard

Report includes: 1 month(s) 49 day(s), from 25.08.2009 to 13.10.2009

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Contains
	Service Level Agreement Scorecard	45,96 %	59,46 %	+ 13,5 %	Structure Perspective (62,1%, 36,84%) Usage Perspective (68,6%, 19,07%) Quality Perspective (39,7%, -23,93%) Delivery Perspective (61,6%, 7,58%)

Graph for Service Level Agreement Scorecard

Data for Service Level Agreement Scorecard

Structure Perspective

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Parent	Contains
	Structure Perspective	25,23 %	62,07 %	+ 36,84%	Service Level Agreement Scorecard	Indicators Transparency level Aspects covered ‘Fully documented’ SLAs SLAs with an assigned manager *

Graph for Structure Perspective

Data for Structure Perspective

Transparency level

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Transparency level	3,088	2,116	-0,972	Score	Maximize	Structure Perspective

Graph for Transparency level

Data for Transparency level

Aspects covered

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Aspects covered	93,15	98,53	+ 5,38	%	Maximize	Structure Perspective

Graph for Aspects covered

Data for Aspects covered

‘Fully documented’ SLAs

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	‘Fully documented’ SLAs	72,97	92,41	+ 19,44	%	Maximize	Structure Perspective

Graph for ‘Fully documented’ SLAs

Data for ‘Fully documented’ SLAs

Usage Perspective

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Parent	Contains
	Usage Perspective	49,53 %	68,6 %	+ 19,07%	Service Level Agreement Scorecard	Indicators Accountability Index Functional Aptness Customer Satisfaction Improvement level attained *

Graph for Usage Perspective

Data for Usage Perspective

Accountability Index

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Accountability Index	3,529	7,219	+ 3,69	Score	Maximize	Usage Perspective

Graph for Accountability Index

Data for Accountability Index

Functional Aptness

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Functional Aptness	97,28	96,36	-0,92	%	Maximize	Usage Perspective

Graph for Functional Aptness

Data for Functional Aptness

Customer Satisfaction

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Customer Satisfaction	76,06	70,81	-5,25	%	Maximize	Usage Perspective

Graph for Customer Satisfaction

Data for Customer Satisfaction

Quality Perspective

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Parent	Contains
	Quality Perspective	63,68 %	39,75 %	-23,93%	Service Level Agreement Scorecard	Indicators Unmatched agreements proportion Re-negotiation ratio Modification level Fraction of ‘on-time’ SLA reviews *

Graph for Quality Perspective

Data for Quality Perspective

Unmatched agreements proportion

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Unmatched agreements proportion	4,89	2,62	-2,27	%	Maximize	Quality Perspective

Graph for Unmatched agreements proportion

Data for Unmatched agreements proportion

Re-negotiation ratio

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Re-negotiation ratio	5,01	0,075	-4,935	%	Maximize	Quality Perspective

Graph for Re-negotiation ratio

Data for Re-negotiation ratio

Modification level

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Modification level	9,11	5,25	-3,86	%	Maximize	Quality Perspective

Graph for Modification level

Data for Modification level

Delivery Perspective

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Parent	Contains
	Delivery Perspective	53,98 %	61,56 %	+ 7,58%	Service Level Agreement Scorecard	Indicators Cost: Benefits Ratio Poor delivery proportion Drop in ‘breaches instances’ Pre-set standards meeting index * Backlog size *

Graph for Delivery Perspective

Data for Delivery Perspective

Cost: Benefits Ratio

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Cost: Benefits Ratio	0,1268	0,3016	+ 0,175	%	Minimize	Delivery Perspective

Graph for Cost: Benefits Ratio

Data for Cost: Benefits Ratio

Poor delivery proportion

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Poor delivery proportion	6,91	0,07	-6,84	%	Minimize	Delivery Perspective

Graph for Poor delivery proportion

Data for Poor delivery proportion

Drop in ‘breaches instances’

	Name	Start value	End value	Dynamic	Measure units	Optimization method	Parent
	Drop in ‘breaches instances’	65,68	90,88	+ 25,2	%	Maximize	Delivery Perspective

Graph for Drop in ‘breaches instances’

Data for Drop in ‘breaches instances’

Copyright © 2000-2012 AKS-Labs. All rights reserved.