Management software market watchers are trained to look at three other companies when one of the Big Four makes a move. One could say that habit comes from years of experience or industry savvy, but honestly not noticing the chain reaction any move among these constant competitors kicks off would be more of a challenge.
For instance, when HP acquired in 2007 acquired Opsware for $1.6 billion, the immediate thought that came to many management junkies' minds was: "Which of the remaining three -- BMC, CA or IBM -- will acquire BladeLogic?" The next thought, "How much will BladeLogic get considering the big price tag HP paid for Opsware?"
BMC acquired BladeLogic, and before that the vendor had picked up RealOps. Opsware before becoming part of HP had acquired start-up iConclude. The 2007 automation acquisition flurry of activity seems to have died down, but many are still prognosticating about what plans CA and IBM could have around automation.
One clue is recent licensing partnerships. CA inked an OEM deal with automation vendor Opalis earlier this year, which indicates CA may bring Opalis into the fold sometime soon. A CA buy of Opalis would make sense, considering the must-have nature of run-book and process automation technologies among the management software makers. And the recent partnership indicates CA, the larger software maker, is doing some due diligence to ensure Opalis technology fits CA's portfolio.
IBM, which started talk of autonomic computing in 2001, at its Pulse Conference in Orlando announced products that feature automation among the capabilities. Industry watchers say positive things about the current automation capabilities, but one still has to wonder if IBM's automation position is getting a little bit stale. There is no question Big Blue initiated the push toward automation, but in light of all the recent activity, industry watchers can't help but ask: "What will be IBM's next move toward automation?"
Dubie is a senior editor at Network World.
The opinions expressed in this Weblog are those of the writer and may not represent the opinions of Network World.
|
|
What Next With IBM on Automation
While surely there are other vendors to consider for RBA, IBM does not seem to be predisposed to one as CA does.
However do you think a good high end run book automation functionality will make monitoring features redudant? Monitoring was relevant information needed to be provided to administrators to take corrective action. If the systems can now take action, who needs to be informed of an error?
Thanks
A
Next step in managing complexity - automation
When it comes to automation, the “Big Four” have more gaps than the London underground. That’s not to say their suites aren’t good, just suggesting that they don’t go far enough when it comes to true automation.
Monitoring tools offer by the Big Four (I call them the Classics), in which most IT organizations have invested, do the job they were designed for and do it well. They effectively collect detailed metric data, cover the majority of infrastructure, and provide the alerting and event management required in the data center. Unfortunately, making the most of these tools requires deep silo expertise and mostly manual processes that simply aren’t sustainable in the face of growing complexity.
Enterprises are buying point solutions that can automate these labor-intensive processes. From RBA to automated Alert & Metric Correlation – point solution players provide a new way to manage IT – true automation. These companies provide a better, more efficient way to address business concerns. The Big Four aren’t stupid; they see this and the revenue that comes with it.
Post new comment