Grandfathering
“Situations that arise from remediation of security risks or non-standard configurations may still incur a charge even if the change is initiated by UNM Networking.“
It looks like this SLA, as it is now written:
• would allow a customer to lose a business to process to a re-configuration
• would not provide any accommodation to the customer if they did not receive prior notification
• and could leave the customer on the look to pay to fix the break (unintended though it was).
I think we all understand that improvements need to be made, and that those will at times lead to breaks – but perhaps this SLA could make it ironclad in such cases that customers will not be charged, particularly if they’ve already experienced a business disruption?
Cost recovery for a customer’s new requests makes sense, that’s only fair. Networking will likely uncover odd, older configurations, undocumented firewall rules, etc., over time. But what is non-standard now was ‘standard’ at the time, and supported customers’ business processes for what may have been decades, even to this day. In which case, those configurations have become in practice part of the core-service.
I don’t have an answer for this dilemma, but I’m wondering if perhaps a committee or IT Agents should develop some grandfather clause for this SLA that fairly balances Networking’s resources with customers and their longstanding business processes, which are dependent on these ‘non-standard’ configurations? One item that could really help smooth acceptance would be a detailed discussion of the prior notification process in those cases.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by ccovey01.