Week 2 • Chapter 5 • 60 min
Design SLAs and Promises
Convert vague dependence into explicit SLAs and promises.
Chapter brief
This lesson distinguishes recurring service expectations from situational commitments and shows how clear inputs, outputs, dates, and escalation rules reduce chasing.
Chapter
5
SLAs and promises
Duration
60 min
Executive self-study plus application.
Week focus
Map the Loop. Redesign the System.
Use current relationships and recurring pain points to create concrete agreements, communication rules, and tools that reduce follow-up.
Source basis
3 anchors
Built from the source workbook, charter, and presentation materials.
Executive line
“Vague cooperation becomes tomorrow's chasing.”
Concept frame
What strong agreements contain
Scope and output
Define exactly what will be delivered and what counts as complete.
Timing and format
Clarify when the output will appear and how stakeholders should expect to receive it.
Risk rule
Make escalation part of the agreement before a deadline is missed.
Why it matters
Much follow-up exists because people think they agreed when they only signaled good intent.
Outcomes
Core ideas
SLA versus promise
An SLA manages recurring service expectations. It answers questions such as: what will be delivered, in what format, within what time, using which inputs, and what happens if something is missing or delayed? It is particularly useful where one function regularly serves another.
A promise is more situational and personal. It covers commitments made in active work, such as sending a note, closing an issue, reviewing a draft, or making a decision by a specific date. NFR leaders need both because not every dependency is best solved with the same instrument.
Clarity is a design discipline
A weak agreement sounds cooperative in the moment but creates follow-up later. Terms such as 'soon,' 'ASAP,' 'I will look into it,' or 'we should get this done next week' create ambiguity in timing, scope, ownership, and required inputs. That ambiguity becomes tomorrow's chasing.
A strong agreement specifies what is being delivered, by whom, when, in what format, and what counts as completion. It also clarifies the trigger for raising risk. This is how leaders convert fragile assumptions into usable operating expectations.
Design escalation before failure occurs
Many commitments fail twice: first in execution, then in communication. The second failure is often more damaging. NFR design therefore includes early-warning rules. If a deadline is at risk, stakeholders should know before the due date, not after they begin chasing.
An agreement is incomplete if it defines success but not what happens when success is threatened. Reliable systems plan the escalation path in advance.
Worked example
Turn ad hoc reporting into an agreement
A business unit head keeps asking for monthly commercial numbers and receives different formats, inconsistent definitions, and delayed submissions from multiple functions.
Before
Everyone believes they understand the request, but no one is aligned on data fields, submission timing, approval dependencies, or what happens if an input is delayed.
SLA design
The leader defines the report scope, required inputs, owner names, submission calendar, format standard, and 48-hour risk-escalation rule. One companion promise covers final leader review and decision turnaround.
After
The work stops depending on interpretation and reminders because both the service expectation and the decision promise are explicit.
Source basis
Key takeaways
Apply and review
Work the chapter
Capture notes, complete the knowledge check, and record the leadership move you will make next. Entries save on this device.
Apply
Design one active SLA and one active promise
Choose one recurring dependency and one personal commitment pattern from your current work. Design both with enough clarity that another person could operate against them without repeated clarification.
Recurring service need
What recurring dependency in your role needs an SLA, and what are the essential fields that must be made explicit?
Personal promise pattern
What commitment do others regularly need from you that should be redesigned as a clearer promise?
Follow-up reduction logic
How will these redesigned agreements reduce the need for chasing?
What good looks like
Knowledge check
Knowledge Check
Suggested pass mark: 80%
Commit
Agreement commitment
Before the week ends, draft at least one actual SLA and one actual promise using specific dates, completion conditions, and risk rules.
Previous chapter
The Personal Follow-Up AuditNext chapter
Communicate Early. Make Truth Visible.Journey context
Map the Loop. Redesign the System.
Use current relationships and recurring pain points to create concrete agreements, communication rules, and tools that reduce follow-up.