An availability number that survives a meeting
Most IT leaders have presented an availability figure and then been asked, "and how was that calculated?". It is a fair question.
The number is easy. The evidence is not.
Was planned maintenance excluded? Which incidents counted? Was it measured, or estimated from tickets afterwards? An availability figure that cannot answer these questions turns the monthly review into a debate about the number instead of a discussion about improvement.
For SAP landscapes the problem is sharper, because systems serve different stakeholders and each one wants to see its own estate, measured the same way as everyone else's.
What makes an availability figure hold up
- Computed from recorded incidentsNot typed into a report at month end.
- Maintenance declared in advanceAnd excluded transparently, so nobody can move the goalposts later.
- Scoped per customer and systemEach stakeholder sees their own estate.
- Evidence on requestThe underlying events are there to show when someone asks.
How FCC produces it
SLA from incidents
Compliance computed from the platform's own incident records.
Maintenance windows
Declared windows excluded from the figure.
Scheduled reports
Reports delivered on a schedule to the people who need them.
Same data as operations
The reporting and the daily operations come from one platform.
When the operational data and the reporting come from the same place, the monthly conversation moves from defending a number to deciding what to improve.
Go deeper
Common questions
Is planned maintenance excluded from availability?
Can each customer see only their own figures?
Bring evidence to your next availability review.
See how FCC's SLA view and reports would look for your systems. FCC is in Beta.
"SAP" and SAP product names are used descriptively. Farrenio Cloud Control is a Farrenio product and implies no partnership with or endorsement by SAP.