A Reference Model for a Service Level Agreement

In Domain of Information Sharing Services
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 391)


Information sharing between government organizations is regulated by Service Level Agreements (SLA’s). Design and implementation of an SLA demands involvement representatives of several organizations. They need to communicate with the same concepts and validate the requirements for the service and quality indicators. In order to support the design of an SLA and its monitoring, we propose related concept, goal and protocol reference models. The first conceptual model view is built using a literature review. The next model views include the details found by analysis of existing SLA’s. The novelty of our models is that they compose an SLA from service level objectives (SLO’s), explain the meaning of SLO’s monitoring, support execution of an SLA and expose the monitoring logics.


Service Level Agreement (SLA) SLA modelling SLA monitoring Service Level Objective (SLO) Goal model Conceptual model Executable protocol model 


  1. 1.
    Blake, M.B., Cummings, D.J., Bansal, A., Bansal, S.K.: Workflow composition of service level agreements for web services. Decis. Support Syst. 53(1), 234–244 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Emeakaroha, V.C., et al.: Towards autonomic detection of SLA violations in Cloud infrastructures. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 28(7), 1017–1029 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Keller, A., Ludwig, H.: The WSLA framework: specifying and monitoring service level agreements for web services. J. Netw. Syst. Manage. 11(1), 57–81 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leitner, P., Ferner, J., Hummer, W., Dustdar, S.: Data-driven and automated prediction of service level agreement violations in service compositions. Distrib. Parallel Databases 31(3), 447–470 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McNeile, A., Roubtsova, E.: CSP parallel composition of aspect models. In: AOM 2008, pp. 13–18 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McNeile, A., Simons, N.: (2011).
  8. 8.
    McNeile, A.T., Simons, N.: State machines as mixins. J. Obj. Technol. 2(6), 85–101 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Menascé, D.A., Ruan, H., Gomaa, H.: QoS management in service-oriented architectures. Perform. Eval. 64(7–8), 646–663 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paschke, A., Bichler, M.: Knowledge representation concepts for automated SLA management. Decis. Support Syst. 46(1), 187–205 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Raimondi, F., Skene, J., Emmerich, W.: Efficient online monitoring of web-service SLAs. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of software engineering, pp. 170–180. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roubtsova, E.: Interactive Modeling and Simulation in Business System Design. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roubtsova, E.: Categories of research methods and types of research results illustrated with a continuous project. In: 21st International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pp. 634–641 (2019)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roubtsova, E., Michell, V.: KPIs and their properties defined with the EXTREME method. In: Shishkov, B. (ed.) BMSD 2013. LNBIP, vol. 173, pp. 128–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Zimmermann, O.: Architectural decisions as reusable design assets. IEEE Softw. 28(1), 64–69 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduated Master of Science Student of the Open UniversityHeerlenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Open UniversityHeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations