Skip to main content
Log in

Digitizing Service Level Agreements in Service-Oriented Enterprise Architecture

Relevance of the Multi-perspective Approach

SN Computer Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 28 September 2023

This article has been updated


As service-orientation gathers traction in enterprise engineering, more and more business processes and capabilities alike are wrapped up and viewed as services in today’s digital enterprises. Digital servitization is neither a rebranding nor a syntax sugar in enterprise engineering. It opens the door to innovative business models, novel system architecture, to name just a few. Central to service provisioning is the notion of commitment that captures contractual agreements between the provider and the consumer of the service in question, describing not only computer-interpretable factors (e.g., reliability, payment), but also business rules (e.g., service penalty) of the commitment. Widely known as the service level agreement, this building block of service-oriented enterprise engineering is pushed towards virtual when it comes to digital servitization. In this article, we propose a descriptive framework for digital enterprise services together with devised techniques for the alignment and reinforcement of the service level agreement. The relevance and applicability of the multi-perspective approach to service engineering are among our findings, which are illustrated using a few examples and a real-life case-study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history


  1. Theoretically, we could have up 27 points in this space. The nine points listed here make the most significant meaning when combining the three modeling perspectives.




  5. ArchiMate modeling language

  6. Full description of these SLAs in Vietnamese can be found at URLs given in footnotes \(\dagger\)\(\ddagger\) and \(IV\) of Table 6.


  8. Note that if non-cost SLA factors two services are the same, the one with lower cost will be preferred.





  1. Alencar Silva P, Weigand H. On the move to business-driven alignment of service monitoring requirements. In: International IFIP Working Conference on enterprise interoperability, pp. 103–117. Springer, Stockholm, Sweden, 2011.

  2. Ameller D, Franch X. Service Level Agreement Monitor (SALMon). In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on composition-based software systems, pp. 224–227. IEEE Computer Society, Madrid, Spain, 2008.

  3. Bianco P, Lewis G, Merson P. Service level agreements in service-oriented architecture environments. Pittsburgh: Tech. rep., Carnegie Mellon University; 2008.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Bitner M. Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. J Mark. 1990;54(2):69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Blake MB, Cummings DJ, Bansal A, Bansal SK. Workflow composition of service level agreements for web services. Decis Support Syst. 2012;53(1):234–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen CM. A review and analysis of service level agreements and chargebacks in the retail industry. Int J Log Manag. 2018;29(4):1325–45.

  7. Commerce M. Internet of Things (IoT) service level agreements: market outlook and forecast for IoT SLAs 2017–2022. San Francisco: Tech. rep., Business Wire; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Comuzzi M, Kotsokalis C, Spanoudakis G, Yahyapour R. Establishing and monitoring SLAs in complex service based systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on Web Services, 20009; pp. 783–790. IEEE Computer Society, Los Angeles, USA.

  9. Czajkowski K, Foster I, Kesselman C, Sander V, Tuecke S. SNAP: a protocol for negotiating service level agreements and coordinating resource management in distributed systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on job scheduling strategies for parallel processing, 2002; pp. 153–183. Springer, Edinburgh, Scotland.

  10. Fabrizio M, Giuseppe P, Corrado S, Domenico R, Sarné G. A multi-agent protocol for service level agreement negotiation in cloud federations. Int J Grid Util Comput. 2016;7(2):101–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Falkowski T, Voß S. Application service providing as part of intelligent decision support for supply chain management. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003; p. 80. IEEE Computer Society, Big Island, USA.

  12. Fernandez A, Gutierrez M. Advanced analysis of service level agreements. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 8th International Conference on service-oriented computing and applications, 2015; pp. 255–258. IEEE Computer Society, Rome, Italy.

  13. Finkelstein Y, Rethinakaleeswaran K, Helm J, Xu Z. Service level agreement based storage access. Accessed 24 Nov 2015.

  14. Franke U, Buschle M. Experimental evidence on decision-making in availability service level agreements. IEEE Trans Netw Serv Manag. 2016;13(1):58–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Frost D, Bryant SF. Service level agreement validation via service traffic sample-and-replay. Accessed 29 Jan 2015.

  16. Gabbay DM, Woods J. Logic and the modalities in the twentieth century, volume 7 (Handbook of the History of Logic). Amsterdam Boston: Elsevier; 2006.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. García JM, Pedrinaci PFC, Resinas M, Cardoso J, Ruiz Cortés A. modeling service level agreements with linked USDL agreement. IEEE Trans Serv Comput. 2017;10(1):52–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Goo J, Kishore R, Rao HR, Nam K. The role of service level agreements in relational management of information technology outsourcing: an empirical study. MIS Q. 2009;33(1):119–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Governatori G, Milosevic Z. A formal analysis of a business contract language. Int J Coop Inf Syst. 2006;15(04):659–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Greenwood D, Vitaglione G, Keller L, Calisti M. Service level agreement management with adaptive coordination. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International conference on networking and services, pp. 45–45. IEEE Computer Society, Silicon Valley, USA, 2006.

  21. Hedwig M, Malkowski S, Neumann D. Risk-aware service level agreement design for enterprise information systems. In: Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on system sciences, pp. 4552–4561. IEEE Computer Society, Maui, USA; 2012.

  22. ISO/IEC. ITU-T X.902 | ISO/IEC 10746-2 Information technology -open distributed processing–reference model – foundations. International standard, SC 7 and ITU; 2010

  23. ISO/IEC. ITU-T X.903 | ISO/IEC 10746-3 information technology–open distributed processing–reference model – architecture. International standard, SC 7 and ITU; 2010

  24. Kearney K.T, Torelli F, Kotsokalis C. SLA\(\star\): An abstract syntax for service level agreements. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE/ACM International Conference on grid computing, pp. 217–224. IEEE Computer Society, Brussels, Belgium, 2010.

  25. Kohlborn T, Luebeck C, Korthaus A, Fielt E, Rosemann M, Riedl C, Krcmar H. Conceptualizing a bottom-up approach to service bundling. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on advanced information systems engineering, pp. 129–134. Springer-Verlag, Hammamet, Tunisia, 2010.

  26. Kohtamäki M, Parida V, Oghazi P, Gebauer H, Baines T. Digital servitization business models in ecosystems: a theory of the firm. J Bus Res. 2019;104:380–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kosba A, Miller A, Shi E, Wen Z, Papamanthou C. Hawk: The blockchain model of cryptography and privacy-preserving smart contracts. In: IEEE symposium on security and privacy, pp. 839–858. IEEE Computer Society, 2016.

  28. Kuo TT, Kim HE, Ohno-Machado L. Blockchain distributed ledger technologies for biomedical and health care applications. J Am Med Inf Assoc. 2017;24(6):1211–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lê L.S. Services for business processes in EA –are they in relation? In: Proceedings of the 22nd Australasian Conference on information systems, p. 4. AIS Electronic Library, Sydney, Australia, 2011.

  30. Lê L.S, Dam H, Ghose A. On business services representation —the 3 x 3 x 3 approach. In: Proceedings of the 21st Australasian Conference on information systems, p. 58. AIS Electronic Library, Brisbane, Australia, 2010.

  31. Lê LS, Ghose A. Contracts + Goals = Roles? In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on conceptual modeling, pp. 252–266. Springer, Florence, Italy, 2012.

  32. Lê L.S, Ghose A, Morrison E. Definition of a description language for business service decomposition. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on exploring services sciences, pp. 96–110. Springer, Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.

  33. Lê LS, Nguyen TV, Truong TM, Nguyen-An K. Contractual specifications of business services: modeling, formalization and proximity. Trans Large-Scale Data Knowl-Cent Syst XXXI. 2017;10140:94–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lê L.S, Truong H.L, Ghose A, Dustdar S. On elasticity and constrainedness of business services provisioning. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on services computing, pp. 384–391. IEEE Computer Society, Hawaii, USA, 2012.

  35. Lê L.S, Truong TM, Wegmann A. A novel approach to modeling enterprise services leveraging object cloning and multilevel classification. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing: Workshops, pp. 160–167. IEEE Computer Society, Paris, France, 2019.

  36. Lê L.S, Wegmann A. An RM-ODP based ontology and a CAD tool for modeling hierarchical systems in enterprise architecture. In: Proceedings of Workshop on ODP for enterprise computing, in conjunction with the 9th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pp. 7–15. Enschede, The Netherlands, 2005.

  37. Lee C, Kavi K.M, Paul R.A, Gomathisankaran M. Ontology of secure service level agreement. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on high assurance systems engineering, pp. 166–172. IEEE Computer Society, Daytona Beach Shores, USA, 2015.

  38. Linington PF, Milosevic Z, Cole J, Gibson S, Kulkarni S, Neal S. A unified behavioural model and a contract language for extended enterprise. Data Knowl Eng. 2004;51(1):5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Linz C, Müller-Stewens G, Zimmermann A. Radical Business model transformation: gaining the competitive edge in a disruptive world. London: Kogan Page; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Melo C, Fantinato M, Sun V, Prado E. Towards an organizational strategic alignment driven by business level agreements. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on service oriented system engineering, pp. 98–109. IEEE Computer Society, Oxford, UK, 2014.

  41. Meng Z, Lu J. A rule-based service customization strategy for smart home context-aware automation. IEEE Trans Mob Comout. 2016;15(3):558–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Nardi JC, Almeida JP, da Silva PH, Guizzardi G. An ontology-based diagnosis of mainstream service modeling languages. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pp. 112–121. IEEE Computer Society, Paris, France, 2019.

  43. Narendra N.C, Lê LS, Ghose A, Sivakumar G. Towards an architectural framework for service-oriented enterprises. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on service-oriented computing: workshops, pp. 215–227. Springer, Shanghai, China, 2012.

  44. Nguyen TV, Lê LS, Nguyen-An K. Aggregating service level agreements in services bundling: a semiring-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on future data and security engineering, pp. 385–399. Springer, Can Tho, Vietnam, 2016.

  45. Nguyen TV, Lê L.S, Nguyen-An K, Truong TM. Aligning service level agreements with service-oriented enterprise architecture. In: Proceedings of the 21st International enterprise distributed object computing workshop, pp. 8–14. IEEE Computer Society, Quebec City, Canada, 2017.

  46. Nguyen TV, Lê LS, Truong HL, Nguyen-An K, Ha P. Handling service level agreements in IoT= Minding rules + Log analytics? In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Enterprise distributed object computing conference, pp. 145–153. IEEE Computer Society, Stockholm, Sweden, 2018.

  47. Olivé A. Conceptual modeling of information systems. Berlin: Springer; 2007.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Önder I, Treiblmaier H, et al. Blockchain and tourism: three research propositions. Ann Tour Res. 2018;72(C):180–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Peters G, Panayi E, Chapelle A. Trends in cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies: a monetary theory and regulation perspective. J Financ Perspect. 2015;3(3):92–113.

  50. Rahwan I, Kowalczyk R, Pham HH. Intelligent agents for automated one-to-many e-commerce negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Conference on computer science, pp. 197–204. Australian Computer Society, Inc., Auckland, New Zealand, 2002.

  51. Riveni M, Nguyen TD, Dustdar S. SLA-based management of human-based services in business processes for socio-technical systems. In: Proceedings of International Workshops on business process management, in conjunction with 15th BPM, pp. 361–373. Springer, Barcelona, Spain, 2017.

  52. Salles G, Fantinato M, Nishijima M, de Albuquerque JP. A contribution to organizational and operational strategic alignment: incorporating business level agreements into business process modeling. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on services computing, pp. 17–24. IEEE Computer Society, Santa Clara, USA. 2013.

  53. Schlosser F, Wagner HT, Beimborn D, Weitzel T. The role of internal business/IT alignment and IT governance for service quality in IT outsourcing arrangements. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on system sciences, pp. 1–10. IEEE Computer Society, Hawaii, USA, 2010.

  54. Stanik A, Körner M, Kao O. Service-level agreement aggregation for quality of service-aware federated cloud networking. IET Netw. 2015;4(5):264–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Suer M, Newton B, Baron D, Lazarus M. Automated service level management system. Accessed 12 Apr 2016.

  56. Theilmann W, Yahyapour R, Butler J. Multi-level SLA management for service-oriented infrastructures. In: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on ServiceWave, pp. 324–335. Springer, Madrid, Spain, 2008.

  57. Theodouli A, Arakliotis S, Moschou K, Votis K, Tzovaras D. On the design of a Blockchain-based system to facilitate Healthcare Data Sharing. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on trust, security and privacy in computing and communications, pp. 1374–1379. IEEE Computer Society, New York, USA, 2018.

  58. Treiblmaier H, Beck R. Business transformation through blockchain. Berlin: Springer; 2019.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  59. Varelas S, Georgitseas P, Nechita F, Sahinidis A. Strategic innovations in tourism enterprises through blockchain technology. In: Strategic innovative marketing and tourism. Springer, Cham; 2019. pp. 885–91.

  60. Vendrell-Herrero F, Bustinza OF, Parry G, Georgantzis N. Servitization, digitization and supply chain interdependency. Ind Mark Manag. 2017;60:69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Wieder P, Butler J, Theilmann W, Yahyapour R, editors. Service level agreements for cloud computing. Berlin: Springer; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Xu J. Managing digital enterprise: ten essential topics. Berlin: Springer; 2014.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  63. Yan J, Kowalczyk R, Lin J, Chhetri MB, Goh SK, Zhang J. Autonomous service level agreement negotiation for service composition provision. Future Gener Comput Syst. 2007;23(6):748–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Yang S, Zhang J, Lan B. Service level agreement-based QoS analysis for web services discovery and composition. Int J Internet Enterp Manag. 2006;5(1):39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Zhang Y, Wen J. An IoT electric business model based on the protocol of bitcoin. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on intelligence in next generation networks, pp. 184–191. IEEE Computer Society, Paris, France, 2015.

  66. Zheng Z, Xie S, Dai H, Chen X, Wang H. An overview of blockchain technology: architecture, consensus, and future trends. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on big data, pp. 557–564. IEEE Computer Society, Honolulu, USA, 2017.

  67. Zimmermann A, Schmidt R, Sandkuhl K. Multiple perspectives of digital enterprise architecture. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on evaluation of novel approaches to software engineering, pp. 547–554. Heraklion, Greece, 2019.

Download references


Work presented in this article is funded by Ho Chi Minh City Department of Science and Technology, under grant number 12/2018/HÐ-QKHCN

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trung-Viet Nguyen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the topical collection “Future Data and Security Engineering 2019” guest edited by Tran Khanh Dang.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lê, LS., Nguyen, TV. Digitizing Service Level Agreements in Service-Oriented Enterprise Architecture. SN COMPUT. SCI. 1, 257 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: