Review GTM SLAs With Exception Evidence
Review GTM service commitments through clear definitions, actual request records and the causes of missed handoffs.
Agree what the commitment measures
Start with the accepted service definition: covered request types, service hours, response or completion target and the event that starts the clock. Record any permitted pauses or exclusions. A first acknowledgement and a resolved request are different outcomes.
Confirm the reporting period and the version of the agreement in effect. If the team changed the definition midway through the period, show that change rather than comparing unlike results as though the measure stayed constant.
Reconcile the result with request records
Link the measured requests and check timestamps against the stated rules. Include unresolved items in the appropriate view so a backlog does not disappear from a report that only counts completed work. Explain exclusions and missing data.
Examine missed commitments for their actual causes: incomplete intake, an unaccepted handoff, unavailable approval or a delivery problem. Keep the contractual result distinct from the operational explanation; an explanation should not silently redefine the agreed measure.
Use exceptions to choose a specific improvement
Ask the service owner which recurring cause can be changed and what evidence would show improvement. Assign the action to the person who can change the workflow. Keep policy or agreement changes subject to the authorized owner’s approval.
Review whether a fast response created extra rework or left the requester without a usable answer. Timing matters, but a useful review also considers the result delivered and any unresolved follow-up.
Example: quick acknowledgements hide slow approvals
Illustrative review: campaign requests receive an acknowledgement promptly, but copy approvals repeatedly arrive after the planned publishing slot. The coordinator separates acknowledgement time from approval completion and links the delayed cases.
The owner adds a receiving reviewer and a visible decision deadline to intake. The next review checks whether approvals reach publication in time. It does not claim improved completion merely because acknowledgement performance remained strong.