A Generic SLA Semantic Model for the Execution Management of e-Business Outsourcing Contracts
It is imperative for a competitive e-business outsourcing service provider to manage the execution of its service level agreement (SLA) contracts in business terms (e.g., minimizing financial penalties for service-level violations, maximizing service-level measurement based customer satisfaction metrics, etc.). In order to do that, the provider must possess a generic means of capturing and managing the SLA contract data (e.g., quality measurement data sources, service-level evaluation rules, etc.) as well as the relationships between them and internal service-level management (SLM) data (e.g., resource management data, system configuration data, etc.). This paper presents the design rationale of a generic SLA semantic model (including a set of semantic elements and relationships) based on an in-depth analysis of nine real ebusiness outsourcing SLA contracts/templates comprising over 100 servicelevel guarantees and intents. Our development experience with a state-of-the-art SLA contract execution manager (named SAM) suggests the semantic model is practical and useful.
KeywordsUnify Modeling Language Service Level Agreement Service Package Service Category Semantic Element
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Hiles, A., “The Complete IT Guide to Service Level Agreements—Matching Service Quality to Business Needs”, Rothstein Associates Inc., Brookfield, Connecticut, USA, 1999/2000 Edition.Google Scholar
- 2.Verma, D., “Supporting Service Level Agreements on IP Networks”, McMillan Technology Series, 1999.Google Scholar
- 3.Sturm, R., Morris, W. and Jander, M., “Foundations of Service Level Management”, SAMS, 2000.Google Scholar
- 4.ASPIC Best Practices Committee, “A White Paper on Service Level Agreement”, Application Service Provider Industry Consortium, November 2000.Google Scholar
- 5.Frey, N., Matlus, R. and Maurer, W., “A Guide to Successful SLA Development and Management”, Gartner Group Research, Strategic Analysis Report, October 16, 2000.Google Scholar