SIST EN 17371-3:2020

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019
01-junij-2019
Zagotavljanje storitev - 3. del: Upravljanje merjenja zmogljivosti - Navodilo za
mehanizem merjenja zmogljivosti kot dela storitvenih pogodb
Provision of services - Part 3: Management of Performance Measurement - Guidance on
the mechanism to measure performance as part of service contracts
Dienstleistungserbringung - Teil 3: Management der Leistungsmessung - Leitlinien für
den Mechanismus zur Leistungsmessung im Rahmen von Dienstleistungsverträgen
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: prEN 17371-3
ICS:
03.080.01 Storitve na splošno Services in general
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019 en,fr,de
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019

---------------------- Page: 2 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019


DRAFT
EUROPEAN STANDARD
prEN 17371-3
NORME EUROPÉENNE

EUROPÄISCHE NORM

March 2019
ICS 03.080.01
English Version

Provision of services - Part 3: Management of Performance
Measurement - Guidance on the mechanism to measure
performance as part of service contracts
 Dienstleistungserbringung - Teil 3: Management der
Leistungsmessung - Leitlinien für den Mechanismus
zur Leistungsmessung im Rahmen von
Dienstleistungsverträgen
This draft European Standard is submitted to CEN members for enquiry. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee
CEN/TC 447.

If this draft becomes a European Standard, CEN members are bound to comply with the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations
which stipulate the conditions for giving this European Standard the status of a national standard without any alteration.

This draft European Standard was established by CEN in three official versions (English, French, German). A version in any other
language made by translation under the responsibility of a CEN member into its own language and notified to the CEN-CENELEC
Management Centre has the same status as the official versions.

CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey and United Kingdom.

Recipients of this draft are invited to submit, with their comments, notification of any relevant patent rights of which they are
aware and to provide supporting documentation.

Warning : This document is not a European Standard. It is distributed for review and comments. It is subject to change without
notice and shall not be referred to as a European Standard.


EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION

EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG

CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels
© 2019 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. prEN 17371-3:2019 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.

---------------------- Page: 3 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019
prEN 17371-3:2019 (E)
Contents Page
European foreword . 3
Introduction . 4
1 Scope . 6
2 Normative references . 6
3 Terms and definitions . 6
4 Context . 10
5 Performance Measurement model . 11
6 Performance Measurement execution . 15
Annex A (informative) Service Assurance Model . 18
Annex B (informative) Examples to specific sectors . 21
Bibliography . 35

2

---------------------- Page: 4 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019
prEN 17371-3:2019 (E)
European foreword
This document (prEN 17371-3:2019) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 447
“Horizontal standards for the provision of services”, the secretariat of which is held by BSI.
This document is currently submitted to the CEN Enquiry.
This document has been prepared under a mandate given to CEN by the European Commission and the
European Free Trade Association.
3

---------------------- Page: 5 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019
prEN 17371-3:2019 (E)
Introduction
This document is part of a series of European Standards that address different phases in the provision
of services: the service procurement phase, the service contracting phase and the service execution
phase.

The drafting of the series was initiated after CEN presented the findings of a study on the potential and
a possible impact of horizontal service standards on the EU single market for services. This study was as
a response to the standardization request M/517 from the European Commission for programming and
development of horizontal service standards. The objective of this standardization request was to
encourage the development of voluntary European Standards covering issues common to many service
sectors. Such standards should aim to facilitate compatibility between services supplied by providers in
different Member States, improve information to the recipient and the quality of services offered in the
EU.
This document aims to facilitate the discussion between the service buyer and the service provider on
service performance. For example, service buyer and service provider can use this standard to:
a) enable benchmarking;
b) facilitate the setting of industry-specific best practice KPI’s;
c) enable fair comparison of different approaches;
d) enable comparison between external providers and an internal department;
e) make a clear distinction between facts and, anecdotes or exceptions; and
f) enable escalations to be performed in a structured and well-informed way.
4

---------------------- Page: 6 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019
prEN 17371-3:2019 (E)
This document also aims at specifying targets for regular services, e.g. in terms of reliability, defect
density, quality as well as targets for response services, e.g. in terms of response and resolution times
and defect removal efficiency. The aim of this document is to provide input to the performance
management.
5

---------------------- Page: 7 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019
prEN 17371-3:2019 (E)
1 Scope
This document provides guidance on setting up the mechanism for Performance Measurement
management as a part of an entire service contract.
This document is applicable to:
a) Any organization regardless of its type or size
b) service buyers; and
c) service providers who may be inside or outside the service buyers' organization.
This document is not applicable to business-to-consumer (B2C) service contracts or for works
contracts.
NOTE 1 ‘Works contracts’ are contracts that have as their object the execution, or both the design and
execution, of a work are not covered. Contracts having as their object only the design of a work are covered.
NOTE 2 ‘Work’ means the outcome of building or civil engineering works taken as a whole which is sufficient in
itself to fulfil an economic or technical function.
2 Normative references
There are no normative references in this document.
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— IEC Electropedia: available at http://www.electropedia.org/
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at http://www.iso.org/obp
3.1 Terms related to services in general
3.1.1
service
intangible product of service provider to help or do work for someone, which service buyer values and
wishes to achieve
Note 1 to entry: While the results are usually intangible, they may also include tangible components.
Note 2 to entry: For the purposes of this standard, a service is not to be confused with the actual resources to
deliver it. A service is an intangible product of service provider, while goods may be tangible products. As such, a
service is not storable and cannot be taken in stock. Examples of resources are human, technology, financial,
facilities, equipment and utilities. Resources to deliver the service may also have a consumable nature, such as
person-hours, spare parts and products in stock.
Note 3 to entry: For the purposes of this standard, a service is not to be confused with the actual processes to
deliver, which are at the discretion of service provider. A process is defined by its activities, while services are a
useful result of performing those activities.
6

---------------------- Page: 8 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019
prEN 17371-3:2019 (E)
3.1.2
service buyer
organization that buys services from a service provider
Note 1 to entry: In public procurement, the service buyer may also be known as the contracting
authority/entity.
3.1.3
service provider
organization or part of an organization that offers, supplies and/or manages one or more services
Note 1 to entry: Service providers can be external or internal to the service buyer’s organisation.
3.1.4
service recipient
organization or a natural person who receives a service
Note 1 to entry: Examples of service recipients include end users, consumers, clients, beneficiaries, and retail
customers.
3.1.5
service facilitator
party acting to introduce and ensure a good agreement between service buyer and service provider, or,
party acting on behalf of either service buyer or service provider
3.1.6
regular service
continuous or periodic provision of a service by service provider
Note 1 to entry: The primary focus is on satisfying pre-documented and agreed requirements of service buyer.
3.1.7
response service
process between service buyer and service provider to deal with service requests and to respond to
service incidents
Note 1 to entry: The primary focus is on satisfying unplanned requirements of service buyer and dealing with
unexpected issues.
3.1.8
service request
request for information, advice, investigation, access to a service or a pre-approved change within the
scope of the services
Note 1 to entry: A service request is usually unplanned or ad hoc.
3.1.9
service incident
unplanned interruption to a service, or a reduction in the quality of a service, or an event that can
impact the service to a service recipient
3.1.10
quick fix
method to address the symptoms of a service incident as initial response and to reach at least a level of
minimum acceptable service performance
7

---------------------- Page: 9 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019
prEN 17371-3:2019 (E)
Note 1 to entry: A quick fix is not a permanent solution to fix the root cause of an incident. It can also be known
as a work-around.
3.1.11
capacity management
process at the discretion of service provider to forecast resource requirements to meet future demand
for services
3.1.12
problem management
process at the discretion of service provider to undertake root cause analysis and determine potential
actions to prevent the occurrence or recurrence of service incidents, to minimise the impact of service
incidents that cannot be prevented, or to address instances of service nonconformity
3.1.13
change management
process between service buyer and service provider to control changes to the services
3.1.14
service nonconformity
failure to meet a service performance target or other contractual obligations
3.2 Terms related to Performance Measurement
3.2.1
service performance
actual level of a key performance indicator relative to the agreed upon service performance target
3.2.2
service performance target
target level of a key performance indicator to express the need, expectation, or obligation of service
buyer
3.2.3
minimum acceptable service performance
level of a key performance indicator that may be lower than the service performance target but that
allows service buyer to meet the business obligations aimed by the service
3.2.4
key performance indicator
measure that quantifies performance of a service
Note 1 to entry: A key performance indicator provides quantitative information about regular services, e.g. in
terms of reliability, defect density, quality and availability, and about response services, e.g. in terms of response
times, resolution times and defect removal efficiency.
Note 2 to entry: Key performance indicators refer to a certain time period, e.g. hour, day, week, month, quarter
or year. It is important to follow the development of the value of a key performance indicator with the course of
time (trend).
3.2.5
service indicator
measure obtained by analysing and summarising service metrics in a representative way
8

---------------------- Page: 10 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019
prEN 17371-3:2019 (E)
Note 1 to entry: Summarising service metrics can include statistical analysis to balance accuracy and cost
relative to sampling.
3.2.6
service metric
measure obtained by measuring and collecting data points of a single attribute over time
Note 1 to entry: A service metric can also be composed of base measures and derived measures.
Note 2 to entry: A service metric can also be delivered out-of-the-box by an instrument, device or programmatic
tool.
3.2.7
attribute
measurable and tangible aspect (often a physical observation or a perception of an service recipient)
relevant to service delivery
3.2.8
measurement period
time period in which the measurement is done and service metrics are gathered
Note 1 to entry: The start of a measurement period is characterised by resetting all data points of the Performance
Measurement Model.
3.2.9
operating window
time period for the operation of regular services
Note 1 to entry: Service provider may define additional windows where different service performance targets
apply, e.g. to differentiate between office hours and night shifts and between office days and weekends.
3.2.10
maintenance window
planned time period mutually agreed between service provider and service buyer during which service
provider is allowed to carry out maintenance services and during which service buyer accepts that
temporary failure to meet the service performance targets may occur
3.2.11
service unit
granularity with which services are measured and reported
Note 1 to entry: A service unit can be expressed as a ‘single delivery of service to a person’ or as the delivery of
services per ‘unit of time’, ‘unit of space’, ‘volume of work’ (e.g. number of people, number of locations or number
of function points) or any other relevant unit.
3.2.12
sampling
taking a number of service units into account relative to the total number of service units
3.2.13
reaction time
service metric that represents the time between the logging or notification of a service incident (or the
issuance of a service request and the moment service provider acknowledges to service buyer
9

---------------------- Page: 11 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019
prEN 17371-3:2019 (E)
Note 1 to entry: Examples of logging or notification of a service incident include an alert or a phone call by an
impacted person.
Note 2 to entry: Example of a service request is a ticket.
3.2.14
restoration time
service metric that represents the time between the logging or notification of a service incident or the
issuance of a service request, and the moment service provider provides a quick fix
3.2.15
resolution time
service metric that represents the time between the logging or notification of a service incident or the
issuance of service request, and the moment a definitive solution is implemented that meets the service
performance target
Note 1 to entry: The implementation a definitive solution may be dependent on processes of third parties or on
processes of service buyer.
4 Context
Before starting the service procurement phase, the service buyer should articulate its ‘business goals.’
Goals might be expressed as balanced business objectives that include financial, organizational,
customer, corporate identity and legal perspectives. Service provider should show that its services
contribute to meeting these goals and performance targets should be derived from these goals.
This document addresses the different phases of service sourcing: the service procurement phase, the
service contracting phase and the service execution phase.
During the service procurement phase, the service provider and service proposition are selected that
efficiently meet service buyer’s business goals. The service provider should use service performance
targets to demonstrate how their service proposition meets the goals. The service buyer and service
provider may use benchmarking to compare performance with an industry sample, with another part of
the same organization or with the same part of the organization from a previous period of time.
During the service contracting phase, the agreement between the service buyer and service provider is
defined. The service buyer and service provider should use this document to specify the service
provider’s commitment for the service performance targets relative to their service proposition in the
form of a Service Level Agreement.
During the service execution phase, the services are delivered to the service buyer and additional
requests and service incidents are responded to. The service buyer and service provider should use this
standard to measure service performance against the set service performance targets.
Measuring service performance is a part of a “control cycle” (see Figure 1). The key performance
indicators should provide the information which is required by the management of service buyer and
service provider in a manner that eliminates misinterpretation. Careful selection of suitable key
performance indicators together with clear and unequivocal definitions is therefore necessary. In
practice the service performance target is often defined not as a single value but as a range within
which the value of a key performance indicator should stay.
Failure to meet service performance targets might result in the following considerations:
• improving the processes at the discretion of service provider (escalation level 1);
• renegotiating the service agreement or applying service penalties / service credits (escalation level
2 to the service contracting);
10

---------------------- Page: 12 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019
prEN 17371-3:2019 (E)
• redoing the procurement (escalation level 3 to the service procurement);
• resetting the goals and expectations (escalation level 4).
Figure 1 illustrates this “control cycle” and the interaction between service Performance Measurement
and the service sourcing phases.

Figure 1 — Service sourcing phases
This document specifically addresses the activities listed between the dashed lines:
a) offering a service proposition and demonstrating that goals can be met by using service
performance targets in the service procurement phase;
b) committing to a service proposition by committing to service performance targets in the service
contracting phase;
c) measuring service performance by comparing key performance indicators against service
performance targets in the service execution phase.
Annex A Service Assurance Model proposes a capability maturity model to enable attestation of the
process maturity of service provider by a third-party building on the Performance Measurement Model
of this standard.
5 Performance Measurement model
5.1 General
The service Performance Measurement model described in Figure 2 is an interpretation of the
measurement information model presented and explained in [ISO/IEC/IEEE 15939]. The model helps
to define the service Performance Measurement structure to facilitate service monitoring,
measurement, analysis, and evaluation. The core of the model is that it makes a strong distinction
11

---------------------- Page: 13 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019
prEN 17371-3:2019 (E)
between measurements and indicators. Measurements and data collection provide statistics and
anecdotal evidence, while indicators provide management information.
The model describes how attributes of relevant entities can be quantified and converted to indicators
that provide a basis for decision making. The model is a structure which starts with linking information
needs to the relevant attributes of concern. For example, the information need can be how responsive a
service provider is to service incidents. Attributes include elements of processes, physical quantities,
and perceptions such as temperature, food quality, number of defects, and availability. From these
attributes, service metrics can be deduced. And from service metrics, according to the significance and
importance to the service buyer’s goals, key performance indicators can be deduced.

12

---------------------- Page: 14 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019
prEN 17371-3:2019 (E)

Figure 2 — Service Performance Measurement model
5.2 Measure & Collect to obtain Service Metrics
The Measure & Collect method is the low-level process to collect attribute data from devices,
instruments, tools and surveys. The collection of data should be sufficiently scalable in order to obtain
representative large samples. For physical observations, an attribute should be observed over time in
order to level out spikes and outliers in an appropriate, documented and agreed upon way. When
capturing perceptions of service recipients using survey questions, responses should be obtained using
a normalised scale. Such scale can, for example, be a variation of “very good,” “rather good,” “rather
bad,” “bad”.
NOTE A service metric can also be determined out-of-the-box by an instrument, device or programmatic tool.
13

---------------------- Page: 15 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019
prEN 17371-3:2019 (E)
5.3 Convert & Aggregate to calculate Service Indicators
The Convert & Aggregate process converts the raw service metrics (for example for reasons of
normalisation) and aggregates them into representative service indicators. In order to provide
meaningful service indicators, the aspect ‘representative’ is critical, which means that an appropriate,
documented and agreed upon sampling strategy should be adopted to avoid false conclusions. For
example, a sample of 2 incidents where 1 failed to meet its target would show a failure rate of 50 %
which would be an unfair reflection on such a small sample. A sample of 1 failure out of 100 incidents
would show a failure rate of 1 % which would be a fair reflection’.
Sampling and the corresponding service indicators should be reset at the start of each measurement
period.
NOTE 1 It can be useful to use statistical analysis techniques. Specifying statistical analysis, however, is not in
the scope of this document.
NOTE 2 A service indicator may be mapped one-to-one onto a service metric in case the latter has sufficient
statistical relevance in itself.
5.4 Weight & Combine to calculate Key Service Indicators
The Weight & Combine method is the process of weighting the service indicators and combining them
into key performance indicators to provide insight on actual service performance.
The service provider and service buyer should agree on key performance indicators and associated
service performance targets to reflect the service buyer’s goals with sufficient levels of accuracy,
completeness and confidence. The service provider and service buyer should avoid to simply use
attributes and service metrics as key performance indicators.
NOTE Weighting factors can be used to differentiate between normal service operating windows and other
windows, e.g. night shifts and weekends.
EXAMPLE: A key goal of the service buyer is to “offer its employees a canteen with a variety of qualitative
lunches”, then service performance could be measured as follows:
• Determining which attributes of the goal can possibly be measured:
a) perception of taste of a meal by an employee
b) perception of visual presentation of a meal by an employee
c) composition of a meal
• Calculating individual service metrics:
i. response to a survey question on a scale of “very good,” “good,” “rather bad,” “disgusting”
ii. response to a survey question on a scale of “attractive,” “good,” “not appealing,” “awful”
iii. logging the ‘meal composition’ as ‘ingredients and cooking style’
• Aggregating the results into representative service indicators:
1. perceived quality of the meals on a combined scale of “very good,” “rather good,” “rather bad,” and “bad”
based on a sample of 10 % of the employees surveyed on 3 separate dates within a specific month
2. number of different meal compositions in a specific month relative to the number of business days
14

---------------------- Page: 16 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17371-3:2019
prEN 17371-3:2019 (E)
• Determining the key performance indicator for “serving qualitative lunches”:
o (% of meals perceived as “very good”) x weight-1 + (% of meals perceived as “good”) x weight-2 + (% of
different meal compositions) x weight-3
6 Performance Measurement execution
6.1 General
The service Performance Measurement structure distinguishes measurement of the regular services
provided on a continuous/periodic basis and measurement of the processes between customer and
provider in response to requests and service incidents.
6.2 Measuring regular services
Regular services refers to the recurring (continuous or periodic) provision of services. The primary
focus is on satisfying the documented needs of service recipients.
Regular services impose a continuing need for adequate resources, e.g. require trained and motivated
staff, an appropriately sized infrastructure, tools, processes and consumables. For example, over time
infrastructure might need to be upgraded, replaced, or retired; service delivery staff might need to be
retrained, augmented, rotated, or reduced; and consumables might need to be replenished to ensure
that the service is delivered in accordance with service agreements.
Measuring regular services involves the three levels of the service Performance Measurement model for
the recurring (continuous or periodic) provision of services.
In order to provide the regular services, service provider may perform capacity management. Since the
capacity management process should be left at the discretion of service provider, it is not targeted by
this document.
6.3 Measuring response services
6.3.1 Service request lifecycle
Even given recurring regular services, customers and service recipients should be able to notify the
service provider of their needs for specific instances of service delivery. These needs can be
communicated in different ways, including tickets, face-to-face encounters, phone calls, e-mails, and
even non-verbal signals (pressing the bell button at a reception desk).
Regardless of its type of notification, a service request identifies one or more desired services that the
requestor expects to be included in the scope of an existing service agreement. These requests are often
generated over time by customers and service recipients as their needs develop. In this sense, service
requests are triggering events that cause service delivery to occur.
To fulfil a request, processes such as capacity management, problem management and change
management might need to be invoked. A service request which is deemed to represent a change
relative to the original intent and scope of the service agreement is out of the scope of this document.
However, a service request which is requesting a change to the service to correct an error or make an
improvement is within the scope of this document.
Measuring a request fulfilment process involves measuring the lifecycle of all service requests. The
lifecycle includes capturing service requests and fulfilling them within the service performance targets.
The lifecycle of a request might include approving, prioritising and scheduling it and notifying the
requestor of its status. Measuring the lifecycle might involve logging all key activities of the process.
The lifecycle of a service request should distinguish the following stages in order to
...