The SLA closes on time. And the same ticket returns three weeks later
An executive guide on what to measure in an AMS contract beyond response time — recurrence, root cause actually treated, knowledge that stays with you, and the clauses that decide whether you are buying support or buying peace.
96%
The SLA is being met. That is the number that goes into the service review.
54%
Almost half reopened or came back under a new number — and each return counts as a fresh ticket.
Closing on time is not resolving. Only the second measure tells you the cause was treated.
The problem
The contract measures speed. What hurts is repetition
Almost every AMS contract is organised around time: how long to respond, how long to resolve, how much availability. These are good measures and easy to audit — which is why they are there.
The trouble is that none of them answers the question the business actually asks: why is this happening again? A ticket closed in two hours that reopens next month met the SLA twice and resolved nothing.
And the pricing structure usually makes it worse. When you pay per ticket handled, volume is the supplier’s revenue — and treating the cause reduces that revenue. Nobody is acting in bad faith; the incentive is simply pointing the wrong way.
There are four places where this distortion shows up, and each has its own indicator in the guide.
What the business feels
Within target, month after month.
The same fault reopened under a new number does not count as recurrence — and disappears from the statistic.
99.8%, no critical incident.
An interface that responds slowly brings nothing down and stalls the operation all the same.
Steady volume, team correctly sized.
Steady volume means the cause was never treated — and the cost became a subscription.
Documented and current.
Documentation only the supplier knows how to use is dependency by another name.
What is inside
Six things to demand before signing, not at renewal
1 · The recurrence measure. How to define, in the contract, what counts as a repeated ticket — and why without it the statistic lies in favour of whoever produces it.
2 · Root cause with a deadline and an owner. The clause that forces root cause analysis above a repetition threshold, with a deadline and a named owner.
3 · The inverted incentive. Why paying per ticket rewards volume, and three pricing formats that align the supplier with reducing demand.
4 · Knowledge that stays with you. What to require of documentation so that the supplier leaving does not take your ability to operate with them.
5 · What AMS is not. Where support ends and project begins — a badly drawn boundary is the origin of most scope arguments.
6 · How to leave. The transition clause, what it must contain, and why it is negotiated on the way in rather than on the way out.
Who for
Written for whoever signs the contract and answers for the operation
- have AMS and feel the same problem keeps coming back;
- are about to contract and want to know what to demand beyond response time;
- need to justify internally switching or renewing the supplier;
- suspect ticket volume has quietly become a fixed cost.
- want a ready-made contract template to fill in;
- want a comparison between named suppliers;
- expect a market price table: there is criteria here, not a quote.
AMS and SLA guide
The PDF link appears right here as soon as you send. No account, no password, no intermediate step.
- Executive guide, 2026 edition
- The six demands with suggested clause wording
- Recurrence and treated-cause indicators
- Supplier transition checklist
Inove Solutions delivers managed support under the Life Support model, and handles SAP estates in SAP practices.