About a-team Marketing Services
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry

A-Team Insight Blogs

Will SLA’s be Re-Evaluated After Tumultuous Times Highlight Response Issues?

Subscribe to our newsletter

Service level agreements were a key topic in this morning’s roundtable discussions at FIMA 2008, with one data manager at a Tier 1 financial institution suggesting that many SLA’s are now likely to be revisited in order to achieve better responses from their data suppliers after the current market conditions highlighted the need for faster answers to questions from the vendors.

SLAs between data vendors and their financial institution clients can become elaborate, but the more elaborate they get, the more it will cost to support, said a major vendor representative. When agreeing SLAs for offshored services, it is also essential to look at other factors such as time zones and turn around times on queries. But what is essential in crafting an SLA, is to focus on the key points of service that you would like to achieve, rather than trying to cover everything.

While vendors will not provide any guarantees on the accuracy of the data itself for a number of reasons, what they do provide is guarantees on the level of service they provide, in areas such as reacting to exceptions. So there is a certain level of responsiveness that is required – such as a response within an hour for up to 20 requests in the hour – to satisfy the SLA agreement.

The vendor/client SLA is usually a subset of SLAs that the client has with its own clients, said a buy side data manager in the discussion. When he is evaluating data products, the criteria are cost, coverage and service, with service receiving the largest weighting. But this is then pushed back by his company’s executives who put more emphasis on cost and coverage. So it’s necessary to find a balance between them among suppliers.

Interestingly, the major vendor said that analysing metrics over a long period of time, like 24 months to see which vendor is right or wrong on a piece of data, the average is between 48.5% to 51.5%. In other words, all vendors have a similar level of errors averaged out across market segments, sources or processes.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: Approaches to ESG data for the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR)

The EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) outlines extensive rules designed to ensure transparency across sustainable financial markets. It also demands huge volumes of non-financial ESG data to be sourced, managed and governed, some of which is difficult to find, and much of which is unstructured and of variable quality. The data challenge is exacerbated...

BLOG

Challenges and Opportunities of Internal Self-Service Data Solutions

The concept of internal self-service data solutions is gaining traction as financial institutions and corporations see value in the data sets they generate through their business activities. That said, harnessing the data to provide valuable insights for internal business teams can be a challenge. One approach is to adopt a self-service data delivery model that...

EVENT

TradingTech Summit London

Now in its 12th year the TradingTech Summit London brings together the European trading technology capital markets industry, to explore how trading firms are innovating in today’s cloud and digital based environment to create flexible, scalable trading platforms to support speed to market and business agility.

GUIDE

The Global LEI System – A Solution for Entity Data?

The Global LEI System – or GLEIS – has been in development since the middle of last year. Development has been patchy at times, but much has been done, leaving fewer outstanding issues, but also raising new questions. What’s emerging is a structure for the GLEIS going forward, complete with a mechanism for registering and...