A consultant has made two recommendations to you in a report: (1) To include legal terminology in your Service Level Agreements (SLAs) (2) It is not necessary to be able to measure all the targets in

Recommendation 1 does not conform to good practice because SLAs should use plain, clear language accessible to non-legal stakeholders, not formal legal terminology that creates ambiguity.

Recommendation 2 does not conform to good practice because all targets in an SLA must be measurable - unmeasurable targets cannot be monitored, reported, or used to drive service improvement.

Neither recommendation conforms to SLM good practice; selecting both as correct would endorse SLA design that is inaccessible to business users and contains unenforceable, unmeasurable targets.

ITIL guidance on SLAs explicitly states they should be written in simple, jargon-free language understandable by both IT staff and business customers, making legal terminology inappropriate and counterproductive to mutual understanding. Additionally, any target included in an SLA must be measurable - if a target cannot be measured, it cannot be monitored or reported on, making it meaningless and unenforceable as a commitment. Since both recommendations contradict established SLM good practice, neither should be adopted.