Cyber Monday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

PeopleCert Exam ITIL-SOA Topic 5 Question 2 Discussion

Actual exam question for PeopleCert's ITIL-SOA exam
Question #: 2
Topic #: 5
[All ITIL-SOA Questions]

Scenario

A company provides an internet-based gift delivery service which is highly dependent upon IT services provided by the internal IT organization. A year ago the customer payments service that supports the gift ordering website regularly experienced poor availability. The organization hired a service management consultant to assess why the IT services were performing poorly and to rectify the situation.

As part of the solution, the consultant implemented service level management and adopted the role of interim service level manager. Service level agreements were negotiated with the business and agreed. The necessary underpinning agreements were negotiated and put in place. Regular monitoring and reporting was implemented. Monthly service review meetings with the business unit managers were established to discuss IT service performance and any issues and improvements. Within a year of the start of the initiative the gift ordering website IT service was performing at 98.7% availability, a significant improvement.

This month's service review meeting was attended by the chief executive officer (CEO) after concerns were expressed about the most recent availability figure for the customer payments service, which was 94%. This covered the period which included one of the traditionally most popular gift ordering times. The consultant stated that the poor availability was almost entirely due to an incident that occurred during one of the busiest periods and. as a result, the overall monthly availability percentage was low. Initial investigation has shown that the service desk used the SLA to designate the incident as a 'Priority 2'. This was however lower than the 'Priority 1" the business believed the incident should have been. The subsequent delay in restoration of the service meant some customer orders were lost.

The CEO reminded the consultant that a repeat of such an incident would not only have a major effect on monthly revenues but also seriously affect the company's reputation. The consultant agreed that this was unacceptable and committed to review this issue and report back to the CEO.

Refer to Scenario

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

Contribute your Thoughts:

Currently there are no comments in this discussion, be the first to comment!


Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77