A number of issues were discoveredupon review of the initial Service Level Agreement (SLA) draft. A great deal of problems arose with the key clauses lacking proper definition. Other areas that need review with the SLA include adding cyber law compliance and a need for the proper documentation preparation. The recommended changes that need to be made to the initial SLA are written below in a per-clause basis.
Initial SLA Clause 4, Statement of Intent
The original statement of intent makes claims about leading research and knowledgeable consulting firms without listing any references. These claims need an identifiable source to be included in the finalized ...view middle of the document...
The first paragraph discusses the deployment of employees on a “gradual basis.” This term needs better definition and may be fixed by suggesting that the gradual basis is a part of the judgment system of the metric clause. This methodology enables to view the gradual basis statement based on the successes of the work effort judged by the metric clause and that clause must be agreed upon by all three parties.
Datanal and Minertek have specified they have the staff necessary to complete the work effort in the second paragraph of the scope of work effort in the initial SLA. This statement may be left intact in the finalized documentation and can be used as an escape clause for Finman if at any time Datanal and Minertek are not able to accomplish the required distribution of specialists necessary to complete the work effort. It would also be wise to add a reference to the documentation provided by Datanal and Minertek listing these facts in order to better protect the resources of Finman.
Initial SLA Clause 6, Non-Exclusivity
This section has nearly no definition in the initial SLA. This is a huge security hole and needs to clearly state exactly how the finalized SLA will be non-exclusive, justifying the agreement only to the three parties involved. The non-exclusivity must also withstand the scrutiny of current national and international cyberlaw regulations due to the scope of work. The non-exclusivity clause should apply only to the SLA statement of work and it needs to cross-reference that section in the final clause.
Also, the inclusion of a statement regarding Finman’s, Datanal & Minertek’s patents, copyrights and other proprietary rights needs to be included in this clause. This statement needs to discuss and ensure the retention of each business’s rights in regards to those issues. A brief clause stating that all three businesses are allowed to use specified pooled resources only for the duration of this SLA work effort should suffice in securing the intellectual property of the companies involved. None of the companies should be able to use the secured resources after the termination of the work effort unless a future agreement is proffered and installed in to the finalized SLA.
Initial SLA Clause 7, Metrics
The progress of the work effort cannot be gauged if there are no metrics defined. Since the decision has been made by Finman to create metrics with Datanal and Minertek before work progress can be gauged, the work cannot even begin until all parties agree upon how their work will be judged. Also, a great risk of not developing metrics before the start of work is scope creep. Scope creep can lead to a ballooning effect, greatly increasing the original plans goals and expenses. This can even lead to the complete failure of the project and the companies involved in the SLA.
Once the metrics have been decided they can be placed into the metric clause. The SLA will be judged upon the metrics placed within this section. The project...