Data leaders, especially those at the VP level, need to understand data service-level agreements (SLAs) like the back of their hand—because mastering these critical contracts allows them to maximize the value of their data investments. This understanding also goes a long way toward fostering trust and accountability across different teams. 

Photo illustration by Gable editorial / Midjourney

However, while their underlying concept isn’t inherently complicated, service-level agreements at the enterprise scale can be multifaceted. This is why, from time to time, data leaders must reassess the components of an average SLA, why they matter, challenges that are common to data SLAs, and best practices that data leaders rely on to draft them efficiently and effectively.

How to define data SLAs

On a basic level, data SLAs are formal agreements between data producers (or providers) and data consumers. Often, these data providers are external, independent sources of data or vendors, while a given organization will internally house data consumers within differing teams, business units, and departments.

However, in some businesses and industries that require a greater reliance on data for decision-making, operations, or compliance—think tech and software development, e-commerce, financial services, and large enterprises—data SLAs can function between data providers and consumers operating within the same organization.

SLAs, whether data-related or not, are also wonderful in the sense that their name succinctly represents exactly what they are: documentation that outlines agreed-upon services—and levels of service—that one party is purchasing from another.

Although SLAs drafted as vendor agreements serve as enforceable contracts, not all SLAs are legally binding. For example, data leaders commonly implement internal SLAs as informal agreements instead of legally enforceable contracts.

Legal or not, formal or informal, data SLAs exist to guarantee both access to data from producers and the quality of that data. As such, a data SLA will cover universal data quality metrics: data reliability, accuracy, timeliness, and consistency.

Stakeholders tailor data quality requirements to their specific business needs, use cases, and priorities when drafting SLAs. For instance, banks rely on real-time transaction data to detect and deter fraudulent activities. 

Data leaders in these situations might reasonably draft a data SLA that emphasizes:

  • Timeliness: “The provider guarantees that transaction data will be processed and made available to the fraud detection system within two seconds of the transaction occurring, excluding scheduled maintenance windows or force majeure events.”
  • Accuracy: “The provider guarantees an accuracy rate of no less than 99.99% in transaction data, as measured by periodic audits of randomly sampled transactions.”

This makes sense because in banking, "data quality" means real-time availability and near-perfect accuracy, as delays or inaccuracies risk financial losses, reputational damage, or regulatory penalties.

Let’s now switch to the healthcare industry, where data leaders would, of course, value timeliness and accuracy as key factors of healthcare data quality. But when drafting a data SLA, they might instead pay additional time and attention to outlining requirements for:

  • Completeness: "Provider guarantees that critical fields in patient records—such as allergies, current medications, and medical history—will be populated for 100% of patients where such information is available.”
  • Timeliness: “Updates to patient records—such as new test results or medication changes—are guaranteed to be reflected in the EHR system within five minutes of entry by healthcare staff under normal operating conditions.”

Here, our theoretical data leader emphasizes completeness and timeliness—and rightly so. Incomplete or delayed information could directly jeopardize patient safety and outcomes.

Regardless of industry, data leaders can formalize these agreements through data SLAs to ensure that both providers and consumers understand their roles, responsibilities, and limitations in maintaining reliable and actionable data pipelines.

As a result, a well-drafted data SLA will increase an organization’s trust in the data they use, hold teams accountable for meeting agreed-upon standards, and set clear expectations that lower data-related risks over time.

But that doesn’t mean SLAs don’t come with their own set of issues. For those at the leadership level on data teams, it’s wise to pay attention to a few in particular.

Common (yet critical) data SLA challenges for data leaders

Agreements tend to be easy—until people get involved, that is. Even the simplest SLA can (and usually does) create at least a few issues that data leaders need to handle. 

That said, not all challenges are equally problematic, which is why it’s wise to focus on those that are most common and critical to drafting and implementing data SLAs in most organizations. 

Aligning realistic performance metrics with business KPIs 

When data leaders engage service providers, they typically start by addressing key concerns: acceptable downtime (if any), response times for business needs, and data quality issues.

But data performance metrics represent only half the equation. Data leaders must also ensure that data outlined in the SLA actively supports their organization’s key performance indicators (KPIs).

Failure to solve for all sides here can set data teams up for failure and cause them to overpromise and underdeliver, which leads to SLA breaches and eroded trust. Misaligned metrics also waste resources and force teams to focus on irrelevant or impractical goals. The devil can certainly be in the lack of detail here, as ambiguous definitions such as “timely data” or “high accuracy”) can lead to disputes about compliance.

Maintaining robust communication between teams 

Poor or absent communication between data producers, whether they’re external vendors or internal data engineering teams, and data consumers often leads to misaligned expectations regarding SLA deliverables. Technical jargon, unclear documentation, and siloed workflows often exacerbate communication issues.

In the short term, misunderstandings like these about SLA terms or metrics can lead to disputes over compliance. However, when left to fester, poor SLA-related communication can result in unmet expectations, wasted resources, and strained relationships between teams.

Supporting post-SLA monitoring and compliance 

Teams must monitor SLA performance to ensure adherence to agreed-upon standards. Despite near-universal data governance needs, organizations may lack real-time monitoring tools and instead rely on fragmented systems, which obscure SLA compliance.

As a result, alert fatigue can desensitize teams to critical issues, delay responses, and increase the risk of SLA breaches. Furthermore, weak monitoring strategies often force teams to identify issues only after they’ve disrupted operations or affected stakeholders.

While these three SLA-related challenges aren’t inherently complex, data leaders must not underestimate their impact on data teams’ ability to maintain high data quality. Fortunately, following fundamental best practices allows teams to reduce—or even eliminate—these challenges.

7 best practices for effective data SLAs

These following best practices, though not exhaustive, provide data teams with a solid operational foundation to build on. Each is specific enough to be actionable yet broad enough to be applicable across industries and organizations.

1. Gain key buy-in and champion cross-functional collaboration

Involve stakeholders from all relevant teams—data engineering, IT, business units, and leadership—as early in the SLA drafting process as possible. This ensures the agreement gains the backing of key decision-makers during the decision-making process. These efforts also ensure the data SLA itself will reflect the diverse perspectives and operational realities of the organization.

2. Keep SLAs in lockstep with business objectives

Information, insights, and perspectives gained can then ensure data SLAs are drafted in harmony with business objectives, as every SLA should—full-stop. This ensures that the data quality metrics and performance standards defined in the SLA are not arbitrary but instead contribute to measurable business outcomes, such as improving decision-making, customer satisfaction, or regulatory compliance.

3. Define clear, measurable metrics based on those business objectives

Clearly articulate key metrics—such as accuracy, timeliness, completeness, and availability—that are specific, measurable, and enforceable. Avoid vague terms like “high-quality data” without defining what that means in quantifiable terms. In most cases, leveraging the SMART Goal methodology will be more than sufficient.

4. Outline specific, realistic expectations

Ensure SLA targets are ambitious yet achievable based on historical performance and current technological capabilities. Unrealistic targets frequently lead to SLA breaches and erode trust between data providers and consumers.

For help in doing so, analyze past performance data to set achievable benchmarks. For instance, if data pipelines historically operate with 99% uptime, setting a 99.5% target may encourage improvement without overpromising.

5. Implement robust monitoring and reporting

Establish systems to continuously monitor SLA performance in real time and provide transparent reporting to stakeholders. This includes tracking key metrics like latency or accuracy and generating alerts for potential breaches.

Ideally, use observability tools that integrate with your data pipelines to automate monitoring and generate actionable insights. For example, dashboards showing uptime percentages or error rates can help teams proactively address issues before they escalate.

6. Include flexibility clauses

Data SLAs should account for evolving business needs or unforeseen events (e.g., system upgrades or security breaches). Use flexibility clauses to periodically review and adjust the SLA, keeping it relevant over time.

This can prove crucial, as the data needs of businesses that grow rapidly or adopt new technologies may change substantively. Regularly revisiting SLAs ensures they continue to align with organizational priorities.

7. Establish consequences for non-compliance

Finally, define crystal-clear consequences for failing to meet SLA commitments while ensuring they are fair and constructive. This could include financial penalties for external vendors or escalation protocols for internal teams.

To help, look to balance accountability with collaboration by focusing on remediation rather than punishment. For example, an internal SLA might require immediate escalation of unresolved issues to leadership rather than imposing penalties.

Taken together, these practices ensure that data SLAs are not just static documents but dynamic tools that foster accountability, improve communication between teams, and drive continuous improvement in data quality and reliability across the organization. They also contribute to a data-centric culture where shifting data left becomes an ever-greater way of getting things right.

Service-level agreements as part of data-centric cultures: Building on better data quality practices

In data-driven organizations, no individual operates in isolation. Yet when it comes to data SLAs, the success of everyone—from the C-suite and stakeholders to data teams and consumers—can rest on a single set of shoulders.

That’s why those overseeing data quality management must focus upstream to address issues at their source, ensuring that higher-quality data flows freely throughout the organization’s life cycle. Implementing better, more comprehensive SLAs is a strong first step—but the journey shouldn’t end there.

Learn how shifting data left can unlock even greater value by signing up for our product waitlist at Gable.ai.

Share this Post