Workflow template for operations and process improvement
Client service level report
At the end of each reporting period, the service delivery manager gets the report a client contract calls for: every service level measured from your own records, each miss explained by those records, the credits the contract states listed for a person to confirm, and the open questions. Nothing is sent.
Listed under
Add it to a workflow in the Fully Powered Planner, beside the teams and roles that will run it. Book a fit call
The outcome
The report the contract promises arrives on time and stands up to the client's own checking. Every service level in the contract appears once, measured from the business's own tickets, outage log and delivery records, with the arithmetic shown, so anyone on either side can follow a figure back to the rows behind it. A result is never rounded into a pass.
A miss comes with its explanation already attached: the records that missed, how late each one was and the cause your own team noted at the time. Where no cause was noted, the report says so and asks. Exclusions your team claimed, such as time spent waiting on the client, are shown openly with what each one changes, so the service delivery manager confirms them before the client sees the figures.
Credits are listed exactly as the contract states them, worked out only where the contract gives a plain percentage of a named fee or a fixed amount, and quoted word for word where it does not. Every credit waits for the service delivery manager and finance to confirm. Each miss sits beside the corrective actions your team agreed, and a miss with nothing open against it becomes a question. Your people decide what the contract means, which exclusions stand, which credits apply and what the client receives.
Who starts the work, and when
The service delivery manager, or the account manager or a service coordinator working for them, runs it at the end of each reporting period the contract sets, usually monthly, once the period's records are closed and exported. A first run shows the misses and the questions. A second run, after the service delivery manager has answered them, gives the report that is approved, kept and passed to the account manager to send.
What they supply
- The service level schedule: every service level in the contract, set out once by the service delivery manager and checked against the contract: what it measures, its target, the exclusions the contract allows, the credit it carries and where it sits in the contract.
- The period's service records: tickets, incidents, deliveries or reports exported from your own systems, each with its due time, when it was done and any cause or exclusion your team noted.
- The outage log, for any availability service level.
- Figures measured elsewhere, such as a satisfaction score, with their source.
- The corrective action list for the contract, and last period's results.
- The settings: the period, when the records were exported, the time zone, the fees a credit is taken of, and any cap on credits.
What comes out
One draft report in a fixed order: the count of service levels met, missed and not measured; each service level with its result, its target, its status and last period's result; the working behind every figure; each miss with the records that caused it and their cause notes; every exclusion claimed and what it changes; the credits that may apply, totalled and checked against any cap; the corrective actions for each miss, with overdue ones marked; the records left out and why; and numbered questions for the service delivery manager.
When an export's columns do not match, or the records were exported before the period ended, the work stops and asks. It never reads service levels out of the contract on its own, never says whether a credit is owed and sends nothing to the client.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. The business, the client, the contract, the people, the records, the fees and every date below are invented. The business is an invented 40-person managed IT services provider that runs a service desk and a hosted platform for its clients. Its client appears as Client A, and the contract as Managed service agreement MSA-A. People appear by role only. All times are US Pacific time. The service desk system sets the due time of each priority 2 incident from business hours of 08:00 to 18:00, Monday to Friday.
October 2026 has closed. On the morning of Monday 2 November 2026 the service coordinator exported the month's records and ran the report for the service delivery manager. The inputs come first, in full, so the workflow template can be run on them. The draft report it returned follows.
The inputs
1. Settings (typed by the service coordinator)
Client: Client A
Contract: Managed service agreement MSA-A, Schedule 3, version of 1 March 2026
Report period: October 2026 (1 to 31 October 2026)
Records exported: 2 November 2026 09:00
Today: Monday 2 November 2026
Time zone: US Pacific time
Runs it: Service coordinator
Service delivery manager: Service delivery manager
Confirms credits with the service delivery manager: Finance lead
Approves and sends the report: Account manager
Fees for October 2026: monthly service fee 24,000 USD; monthly hosting fee 6,500 USD
Credit cap: total service credits in any month are capped at 10% of the monthly service fee (Schedule 3, paragraph 5.2)
Quarters: calendar
2. Service level schedule (written by the service delivery manager from Schedule 3 of the contract)
sl_id,service_level,type,target,better,measurement_period,service_minutes,excluded_reasons,credit_form,credit_value,credit_base,credit_terms,contract_ref
SL1,Priority 1 incident response within 30 minutes,on-time,95.0,higher,month,,awaiting client,percent of fee,5,monthly service fee,"A service credit of 5% of the Monthly Service Fee applies for any month in which this service level is not met.","Schedule 3, paragraph 2.1"
SL2,Priority 2 incident resolution within 8 business hours,on-time,90.0,higher,month,,awaiting client,percent of fee,3,monthly service fee,"A service credit of 3% of the Monthly Service Fee applies for any month in which this service level is not met.","Schedule 3, paragraph 2.2"
SL3,Hosted platform availability,availability,99.5,higher,month,24x7,planned maintenance,other,,monthly hosting fee,"For each 0.1% (or part of 0.1%) by which availability falls below 99.5% in a month, a service credit of 2% of the Monthly Hosting Fee applies, up to 10% of that fee.","Schedule 3, paragraph 2.3"
SL4,Monthly patching report delivered by the fifth working day,on-time,100.0,higher,month,,,none,,,,"Schedule 3, paragraph 2.4"
SL5,Client satisfaction score of at least 4.2 out of 5,supplied,4.2,higher,month,,,none,,,,"Schedule 3, paragraph 2.5"
SL6,Disaster recovery test completed by the end of each quarter,on-time,100.0,higher,quarter,,,percent of fee,2,monthly service fee,"A service credit of 2% of the Monthly Service Fee applies for any quarter in which this service level is not met.","Schedule 3, paragraph 2.6"
3. Service records export: service_records.csv
record_id,sl_id,opened,due,done,excluded_reason,cause_note
INC-4101,SL1,2026-10-02 08:14,2026-10-02 08:44,2026-10-02 08:31,,
INC-4103,SL2,2026-10-02 09:00,2026-10-02 17:00,2026-10-02 15:42,,
INC-4109,SL2,2026-10-05 08:30,2026-10-05 16:30,2026-10-05 16:05,,
INC-4117,SL1,2026-10-05 22:40,2026-10-05 23:10,2026-10-05 22:58,,
RPT-0926,SL4,2026-10-01 00:00,2026-10-07 17:00,2026-10-06 15:20,,
INC-4121,SL2,2026-10-07 09:20,2026-10-07 17:20,2026-10-07 13:48,,
INC-4128,SL2,2026-10-08 08:10,2026-10-08 16:10,2026-10-09 10:25,awaiting client,Waiting on the client to approve a firewall change from 11:00 on 8 October; approval arrived at 08:55 on 9 October.
INC-4133,SL1,2026-10-09 11:02,2026-10-09 11:32,2026-10-09 11:20,,
INC-4136,SL2,2026-10-12 09:45,2026-10-12 17:45,2026-10-12 17:10,,
INC-4144,SL2,2026-10-13 08:00,2026-10-13 16:00,2026-10-13 14:22,,
INC-4150,SL1,2026-10-14 02:10,2026-10-14 02:40,2026-10-14 03:05,,On-call engineer's phone had no signal; the second page reached the backup engineer at 02:55.
INC-4152,SL2,2026-10-15 09:05,2026-10-15 17:05,2026-10-16 11:40,third-party vendor delay,The replacement licence key from the software vendor arrived the next morning.
INC-4162,SL1,2026-10-17 15:45,2026-10-17 16:15,2026-10-17 15:59,,
INC-4160,SL2,2026-10-19 08:45,2026-10-19 16:45,2026-10-19 12:30,,
INC-4171,SL2,2026-10-21 09:30,2026-10-21 17:30,2026-10-21 16:58,,
INC-4178,SL1,2026-10-22 09:30,2026-10-22 10:00,2026-10-22 09:41,,
INC-4183,SL2,2026-10-23 08:20,2026-10-23 16:20,2026-10-23 15:15,,
INC-4185,SL7,2026-10-24 10:12,2026-10-27 10:12,2026-10-26 16:40,,
INC-4189,SL1,2026-10-26 19:05,2026-10-26 19:35,2026-10-26 19:33,,
INC-4191,SL2,2026-10-28 10:00,2026-10-28 18:00,2026-10-28 17:21,,
INC-4196,SL1,2026-10-30 07:50,2026-10-30 08:20,2026-10-30 08:12,,
INC-4199,SL2,2026-10-30 16:00,2026-11-02 14:00,,,
4. Outage log export: outages.csv
outage_id,sl_id,start,end,excluded_reason,cause_note
O-0,SL3,2026-09-30 23:30,2026-10-01 00:20,,Utility power work at the data centre; the notice reached us after the work began.
O-1,SL3,2026-10-04 01:00,2026-10-04 03:00,planned maintenance,Quarterly platform update in the notified window.
O-2,SL3,2026-10-21 13:12,2026-10-21 17:40,,Storage controller failed; service restored on the paired unit.
O-3,SL3,2026-10-27 09:05,2026-10-27 09:20,,
5. Supplied figures
sl_id,value,source,as_of
SL5,4.4,"Client satisfaction survey export, October 2026, 23 responses",2026-10-31
6. Action list
action_id,sl_id,action,owner,due,status
A1,SL1,Add a backup engineer to the priority 1 paging rota,Service desk lead,2026-10-09,Done
A2,SL3,Replace the failed storage controller and check the controller in the paired unit,Infrastructure lead,2026-10-30,In progress
7. Last period's results (from the September 2026 report)
sl_id,period,result,status
SL1,2026-09,93.3,MISSED
SL2,2026-09,92.3,MET
SL3,2026-09,99.97,MET
SL4,2026-09,100.0,MET
SL5,2026-09,4.3,MET
SL6,2026-09,100.0,MET
The output
CLIENT SERVICE LEVEL REPORT: Client A, Managed service agreement MSA-A, October 2026
For: Service delivery manager. Prepared Monday 2 November 2026 from the service level schedule (6 service levels, written from Managed service agreement MSA-A, Schedule 3, version of 1 March 2026); service_records.csv (22 rows) and outages.csv (4 rows), as exported 2 November 2026 09:00 (US Pacific time); supplied figures (1); the action list (2 actions); last period's results (September 2026).
Overall: 3 met, 2 missed, 0 no events, 1 not measured this period. Met only with a claimed exclusion: SL2.
Performance by service level
- SL1 Priority 1 incident response within 30 minutes (Schedule 3, paragraph 2.1): 87.5% against a target of 95.0% (higher is better). MISSED. Last period (September 2026): 93.3%, MISSED. Missed two periods running.
- SL2 Priority 2 incident resolution within 8 business hours (Schedule 3, paragraph 2.2): 90.0% against a target of 90.0% (higher is better). MET. Last period (September 2026): 92.3%, MET.
- SL3 Hosted platform availability (Schedule 3, paragraph 2.3): 99.32% against a target of 99.5% (higher is better). MISSED. Last period (September 2026): 99.97%, MET.
- SL4 Monthly patching report delivered by the fifth working day (Schedule 3, paragraph 2.4): 100.0% against a target of 100.0% (higher is better). MET. Last period (September 2026): 100.0%, MET.
- SL5 Client satisfaction score of at least 4.2 out of 5 (Schedule 3, paragraph 2.5): 4.4 against a target of 4.2 (higher is better). MET. Last period (September 2026): 4.3, MET.
- SL6 Disaster recovery test completed by the end of each quarter (Schedule 3, paragraph 2.6): no result this period against a target of 100.0% (higher is better). NOT MEASURED: measured each quarter; due in the report for December 2026. Last period (September 2026): 100.0%, MET.
How each result was worked out
- SL1: 7 met of 8 counted = 87.5%. From service_records.csv: 8 rows for SL1, 8 due in the period.
- SL2: 9 met of 10 counted = 90.0%. From service_records.csv: 12 rows for SL2, 11 due in the period, 1 excluded (INC-4128), 1 due after the period (INC-4199).
- SL3: service minutes 31 × 1,440 = 44,640. Counted outage minutes 20 + 268 + 15 = 303. (44,640 − 303) ÷ 44,640 × 100 = 99.32%. Downtime the target allows: 223.2 minutes. Excluded: O-1, 120 minutes.
- SL4: 1 met of 1 counted = 100.0%. From service_records.csv: 1 row for SL4, 1 due in the period.
- SL5: 4.4, as supplied: Client satisfaction survey export, October 2026, 23 responses, 31 October 2026. Not recomputed.
- SL6: not measured: measured each quarter; due in the report for December 2026.
Misses and what the records show
- SL1 Priority 1 incident response within 30 minutes: 87.5% against 95.0%. Short by: 1 more record on time would have met the target (8 of 8, 100.0%).
- INC-4150, due 14 October 2026 02:40, done 14 October 2026 03:05, 25 minutes late: "On-call engineer's phone had no signal; the second page reached the backup engineer at 02:55."
- SL3 Hosted platform availability: 99.32% against 99.5%. Short by: 79.8 minutes more downtime than the target allows (303 counted, 223.2 allowed).
- O-0, 30 September 2026 23:30 to 1 October 2026 00:20, 20 minutes counted (30 fell outside the period): "Utility power work at the data centre; the notice reached us after the work began."
- O-2, 21 October 2026 13:12 to 17:40, 268 minutes counted: "Storage controller failed; service restored on the paired unit."
- O-3, 27 October 2026 09:05 to 09:20, 15 minutes counted: cause not recorded.
Exclusions claimed
- INC-4128 (SL2), "awaiting client": on the schedule's list; left out, to be confirmed. Without the exclusion, SL2 would be 81.8%, MISSED. The status depends on it. See question 3.
- INC-4152 (SL2), "third-party vendor delay": not on the schedule's list; counted as missed, due 15 October 2026 17:05, done 16 October 2026 11:40, 18 hours 35 minutes late: "The replacement licence key from the software vendor arrived the next morning." See question 2.
- O-1 (SL3), "planned maintenance", 120 minutes: on the schedule's list; left out, to be confirmed. Without the exclusion, SL3 would be 99.05%, MISSED.
Credits that may apply, to be confirmed by the service delivery manager with the finance lead
- SL1, missed: 5% of the monthly service fee (Schedule 3, paragraph 2.1): 5% × 24,000 USD = 1,200 USD. May apply.
- SL3, missed: not worked out; for the finance lead to work out. The schedule copies the contract's terms (Schedule 3, paragraph 2.3) as: "For each 0.1% (or part of 0.1%) by which availability falls below 99.5% in a month, a service credit of 2% of the Monthly Hosting Fee applies, up to 10% of that fee." See question 5.
- SL2, only if the exclusion of INC-4128 is not confirmed: 3% × 24,000 USD = 720 USD.
Total worked out: 1,200 USD; 1,920 USD including credits marked "only if". Cap (Schedule 3, paragraph 5.2): 10% × 24,000 USD = 2,400 USD; both totals are within the cap; the cap check is incomplete because SL3 is not worked out.
No credit has been offered, applied or invoiced.
Corrective actions
- SL1: A1 Add a backup engineer to the priority 1 paging rota, owner Service desk lead, due 9 October 2026, Done.
- SL1: No open action recorded. See question 6.
- SL3: A2 Replace the failed storage controller and check the controller in the paired unit, owner Infrastructure lead, due 30 October 2026, In progress, OVERDUE. See question 7.
Records left out
- service_records.csv: 1 row due after the period (INC-4199); 1 row for a service level not on the schedule (INC-4185, see question 1).
- outages.csv: O-0: 30 of its 50 minutes fell outside the period.
Questions for the service delivery manager
- INC-4185 is recorded against SL7, which the schedule does not list, and was left out of every count. Does the contract have a service level SL7 that is missing from the schedule, or is the record's service level wrong?
- INC-4152 (SL2) was resolved 18 hours 35 minutes after its due time and claims "third-party vendor delay", which is not on the schedule's list of exclusions for SL2, so it was counted as missed. SL2 is met whether or not INC-4152 is excluded, as long as INC-4128 stays excluded. Should the record keep that reason, or does the contract allow an exclusion the schedule leaves out?
- INC-4128 (SL2) is left out as "awaiting client", a reason on the schedule's list. With it left out SL2 is 90.0% and met; counted, SL2 is 81.8% and missed, and a credit of 720 USD may apply. Do the records support the exclusion?
- O-3 (SL3), 15 minutes on 27 October 2026, has no cause recorded. What caused it?
- The SL3 credit is in a form this report does not work out, so its terms are quoted above, and the cap check is incomplete without it. What credit, if any, does the finance lead confirm for SL3, and does the cap in paragraph 5.2 cover it?
- SL1 is missed two periods running. Its only action, A1, is done, and no open action is recorded. What action is agreed for SL1, who owns it, and by when?
- A2 (SL3), replacing the failed storage controller, was due on 30 October 2026 and is in progress. What is its new due date?
Draft for the service delivery manager's review. Every result traces to the records named above. Nothing has been sent to the client, no credit has been offered or applied, and no record has been changed.
Where it fits
- Operations and process improvement, which runs the service the contract measures and reports on it every period.
- Customer success and account management, where the account manager decides what the client receives and keeps the relationship sound through a bad month.
- Professional services, where managed services and outsourced work are sold on response times, turnaround and availability written into the contract.
- Software and technology, where hosted platforms and support desks report uptime and resolution times to every client that has a service level agreement.
- Logistics and trade, where warehousing and transport contracts promise on-time dispatch and delivery and carry credits when they slip.
- Established businesses, where several client contracts each set their own service levels and reporting dates.
- Growth and scaling, when the number of contracts outgrows the spreadsheet one person rebuilds every month.
What has to change for your company
Set out a service level schedule for each contract once, and have whoever owns the contract commercially check it against the contract; update it whenever the contract changes. Map your export columns to the ones the template expects. Name who confirms exclusions, who confirms credits with the service delivery manager, and who approves and sends the report. Give the fees each credit is taken of. Decide whether the client receives the full report or a version of it. It runs in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini, from the files you supply; it needs no access to any system.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this workflow template. It was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026. It was tried on its invented example on 11 November 2026 in one run, in Claude; the record of the run is published with it. After an earlier run, the instructions, the output format and the example were revised, and the published record is of the run on the revised text. That run was made by the model that made the revisions, so it is not independent. A few small clauses were added to the instructions after that run, and the amended text has not been run. It has not yet been tested in a client environment.
Testing in your environment means running it on two or three past periods your service delivery manager already reported, with hard cases written in advance: a result just under its target that rounds to it, an exclusion the contract does not allow, an outage that starts the month before, a record still open past its due time, a credit written as a sliding scale. The service delivery manager checks every figure against its working before anyone relies on the report. Pilot acceptance-test preparation sets those cases up, and what we test before we call an AI workflow ready describes the record we keep.
Who decides
Your people keep
- What the contract means
- Which exclusions stand
- Which credits apply
- What the client receives
It does not
- Sends nothing to the client
- Never says whether a credit is owed
- Never reads service levels out of the contract on its own
- Never rounds a result into a pass
Questions people ask
Who is the client service level report for?
The service delivery manager, or the account manager or a service coordinator working for them, runs it at the end of each reporting period the contract sets, once the period's records are closed and exported.
What do I need to supply?
The service level schedule, the period's service records, the outage log, figures measured elsewhere, the corrective action list, last period's results and the settings.
Does it work out service credits?
Only where the contract gives a plain percentage of a named fee or a fixed amount; otherwise the credit is quoted word for word. Every credit waits for the service delivery manager and finance to confirm.
What does it not do?
It sends nothing to the client, never says whether a credit is owed and never reads service levels out of the contract on its own.
What has been checked?
It was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026 and tried on its invented example on 11 November 2026 in one run in Claude; the record is published with it. It has not yet been tested in a client environment.
The full workflow template
Everything above is the outline. The complete workflow template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Put this workflow template to work for your team: on your plan, or built with you in a sprint.
Build this in a sprint
In a sprint, Fully Powered adapts this workflow template to your rules, proves it on your own work and puts it in the hands of the roles that own it.
Two ways to begin: