Most organisations accept SLAs from their managed IT services provider without real scrutiny. The result: agreements that look strong on paper but leave you exposed when things go wrong. If your provider commits to "99% uptime" but your business loses $50,000 per hour of downtime, that 1% matters more than the contract acknowledges.
The SLAs That Actually Protect You
A defensible SLA has five core elements. First: incident response time. This is how quickly the provider acknowledges your issue and assigns someone to it. For critical systems, demand response within 15–30 minutes. For high-priority issues, 1–2 hours. Anything slower means you're already losing business.
Second: resolution time commitments, tiered by severity. Critical incidents (systems down, data at risk) should resolve within 2–4 hours. High-priority issues within 8 hours. Standard requests within 24–48 hours. These windows must be documented per ticket classification, not buried in appendices.
Third: availability targets tied to your actual revenue impact. "99.9% uptime" sounds solid until you do the maths: that's 43 minutes of unplanned downtime per month. If your organisation runs on systems 24/7, demand 99.95% minimum for production infrastructure.
Fourth: monthly reporting with real data. You need actual uptime metrics, incident frequency, mean time to recovery (MTTR), and whether targets were met. Vague quarterly reviews hide poor performance.
Fifth: credits or penalties when targets are missed. If the provider fails to meet SLAs, what happens? Service credits (discounts on fees) are standard. Demand credits equal to 5–10% of monthly fees per hour of missed availability. If they won't accept penalties, they don't stand behind their commitments.
What You're Doing Wrong Right Now
Most government agencies and enterprises make three mistakes. First, they accept SLAs written entirely in provider language. This is normal practice but dangerous. The agreement should reflect your business needs, not the provider's operational comfort.
Second, they don't align SLAs with business impact. A response time that works for email support won't work for your payroll system. Your SLA should specify response and resolution times per system or application, not blanket targets across your entire environment.
Third, they ignore escalation paths. What happens when the first-line support fails? Who do you contact at the provider's management level? Escalation procedures must be named, timed, and tested. If you can't reach a decision-maker after 2 hours of critical downtime, your SLA is worthless.
The Questions to Ask Before Signing
Ask your provider these specific questions:
- What's your actual average response time for critical incidents across all clients (not best-case)?
- How do you measure uptime? (Synthetic monitoring from your site or theirs? This matters.)
- What triggers service credits, and how are they calculated?
- Who is the named escalation contact, and what's their guaranteed availability?
- How will you support our business continuity and disaster recovery requirements?
- What incidents are excluded from SLA coverage? (Read the fine print.)
At CICS, we've seen this pattern across government and enterprise clients: organisations that negotiate SLAs upfront have 40% fewer escalations and measurably better outcomes. Providers that resist clear, auditable commitments are signalling that they can't deliver them.
Your SLA is your only recourse when things fail. Make it count.
Ready to fix your integration challenges? Speak to a CICS consultant.