Application Performance
Monitoring (APM), 2015
Industry Challenges, State of the Art,and the Case for Unified Monitoring
An ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES® (EMA™) White Paper
Prepared for AppDynamics
July 2015

IT & DATA MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,
INDUSTRY ANALYSIS & CONSULTING

Application Performance Monitoring (APM), 2015

Industry Challenges, State of the Art, and the Case for Unified Monitoring

Table of Contents
Overview........................................................................................................................................... 1
Who We Surveyed............................................................................................................................. 1
APM—or Lack of It—In the Enterprise............................................................................................ 2
Challenges and Gaps in Enterprise Application Monitoring.............................................................. 4
Unified Monitoring Comes Into Its Own.......................................................................................... 5
EMA Perspective................................................................................................................................ 6©2015 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. | www.enterprisemanagement.com

Application Performance Monitoring (APM), 2015

Industry Challenges, State of the Art, and the Case for Unified Monitoring

Overview

In today’s digitally-driven world, applications are at the center of the universe. They are the point atop
the pyramid where code, data, and modern technologies such as cloud and the Internet of Things(IoTs) interact to enrich the lives of consumers, perform useful scientific and medical work, and drive
business value.
Because of the fact that applications are the sum total of the “pyramid,” managing and maintaining
them is as much art as science. The elements underlying modern applications are becoming increasingly
elastic, with code, data, hosting platforms, and external inputs/interactions constantly changing.
Often, the underlying elements are only loosely aligned, with the definition of “transaction execution”
increasingly fluid and often extending across multiple platforms and geographies.
At the same time, while many IT organizations still lack a good answer for
managing on-premises-delivered applications, the extension of application
execution into the cloud fosters additional management concerns. In short,each new technology added to the mix increases the risk factors associatedwith application delivery.
In the spring of 2015 AppDynamics, a leading provider of APM solutions,commissioned Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) to conduct asurvey targeting application management professionals and managers.
The goal was to determine exactly what IT organizations want and needfrom APM providers, and more than three hundred application delivery
professionals from across the world gave us their answers.
This EMA white paper discusses the top findings of this study. It provides asnapshot of the key challenges and “must haves” associated with automating
the management, performance, and availability of complex, modernapplications, as voiced by the IT professionals themselves.

In the spring of 2015
AppDynamics, aleading provider of APM
solutions, commissioned
Enterprise Management
Associates (EMA) toconduct a survey targeting
application management
professionals andmanagers. The goal wasto determine exactly what
IT organizations want andneed from APM providers.

Who We Surveyed

Data is virtually meaningless without an understanding of the context in which it was gathered. For thisstudy, EMA analysts surveyed IT professionals from companies of all sizes across both North America andEMEA. Potential respondents were filtered to include only those actively involved in enterprise application
development/management/delivery at the executive, middle manager, or “hands on” line staff levels.
The respondent mix was approximately:• 1/3 EMEA and 2/3 North America• 20% small, 25% large, and 55% mid-sized companies (see Figure 1)• 45% executives (Director or above), 25% middle managers, 30% line staff.
How many employees are in your company worldwide?
20%Less than 1,000 employees

55%

1,000 - 9,999 employees
25%

10K or more employees
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Figure 1: Most Respondents from Mid-sized Companies; 25% Large and 20% Small

Page 1©2015 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. | www.enterprisemanagement.com

Page 1

Application Performance Monitoring (APM), 2015

Industry Challenges, State of the Art, and the Case for Unified Monitoring

APM—or Lack of It—In the EnterpriseA key problem identified by this research is the fact that only approximately 30% of companies reportownership of application-specific solutions—application management platforms or consolidated
platforms capable of monitoring infrastructure and applications in context (see Figure 2). This number
is reinforced by prior EMA research which yielded similar results.
In addition, the tools they do have in place are silo-focused and often underutilized.
• Silo Tools versus Application-specific Tools – While most companies have made significant
investments in enterprise management tools (see Figure 3), only a fraction of those tools support
application execution. The vast majority support management of silo technologies such as networks,servers, and databases.
• Tools that Are in Place Are Often Underutilized – As Figure 4 shows, almost half of therespondents surveyed indicate that 50% or fewer of the tools their companies have purchased
are actively being used. It appears that enterprise management tool choices in general are being
finalized at the silo level, with tools often ending up “on the shelf ” versus in active use.
What is the primary way your IT organization is currently monitoring/managing
enterprise applications?

19%

An Application Management Platform
Big Operational Data correlation/analytics products that
consolidate metrics from multiple sources

16%

Network-focused Real User Monitoring (RUM): Monitors
applications from network perspective

15%

A single, consolidated Application and Infrastructure Monitoring/Management solution

13%

Web Browser monitoring: User experience monitored/measured at
the web browser

11%

10%

Mainly with silo tools

7%

Homegrown monitoring tools: Scripts, etc., developed in house
Endpoint instrumentation: Agent on the endpoint delivers info on
end user experience

6%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Figure 2: Only About 30% of Companies Have Application-specific Solutions

Page 2©2015 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. | www.enterprisemanagement.com

Page 2

Application Performance Monitoring (APM), 2015

Industry Challenges, State of the Art, and the Case for Unified Monitoring

Considering the tools used by IT specialist teams, developers, and application
support personnel, how many commercial enterprise monitoring/management
products would you estimate your IT organization owns?
13%

2-5

21%

6-10

22%

11-25
15%

26-40
9%

41-50
6%

50-75
3%

76-10010%More than 100
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Figure 3: Companies Investing Heavily in Silo-specific Solutions

Considering the commercial enterprise monitoring/mgmt products owned by yourcompany, what percentage is currently in active use versus shelved or retired?
2%

0-10%

6%

11-20%

9%21-30%

13%

31-40%

14%

41-50%
51-60%

11%

61-70%

11%
16%

71-80%
11%

81-90%
8%

91-100%
0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

Figure 4: Despite Heavy Investments High Percentage of Tools are Shelved or Not UsedPage 3©2015 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. | www.enterprisemanagement.com

Page 3

Application Performance Monitoring (APM), 2015

Industry Challenges, State of the Art, and the Case for Unified Monitoring

Challenges and Gaps in Enterprise Application
Monitoring

Many of the top challenges identified by IT professionals in the survey appear to be related to the lack ofapplication-focused solutions as shown in Figure 2. For example, the research indicates that only about
27% of application-related problems are detected by monitoring tools. To compound the problem, IT
finds out about application-related issues via user calls approximately 25% of the time (see Figure 5).
The latter percentage varies considerably depending on role. Line staff, those doing actual, hands-on
application support, report that user calls are their first “heads up” 35% of the time. This larger number
is also confirmed by prior EMA research, which indicates the percentage to be as high as 60% withinsome companies.
The research also shows that IT organizations are expending extensive amounts of time and resources
on application support.
• Mean time to repair (MTTR) on application-related problems is most often between 3 and 6 hours• If an application-related problem is escalated beyond Level 1 support, 3-4 people are mostcommonly required to solve it. Almost 15% of the time, more than 10 people are necessary.
• Finally, the total number of “people-hours” necessary to solve a single problem is most commonly
between 5 and 7 hours (see Figure 6). However, in many cases, the process takes much longer.
Twenty percent of the time the number is 8-10 hours, and in 8% of cases the process requires morethan 20 man-hours.
An examination of these numbers makes it clear that the majority of companies are still trying tomanage complex applications with a combination of “all hands on deck” interactive marathons andtribal knowledge.
Thinking about your company's enterprise applications, how does IT most often findout about performance- or availability-related problems?
27%

Detected by monitoring center25%

Calls from users
Notification from domain-specific management products, i.e.,
network, database, etc.

20%
13%

Notification from application management products
9%

Notification from transaction management products
6%

Notification from Service Level Management products
Twitter or other social media reflecting experiences of externalcustomers

0%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Figure 5: Only 27% of Application Problems Detected by Monitoring Centers

Page 4©2015 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. | www.enterprisemanagement.com

Page 4

Application Performance Monitoring (APM), 2015

Industry Challenges, State of the Art, and the Case for Unified Monitoring

For those problems which are beyond Level 1 support, what is the average numberof total "people hours" required to evaluate, diagnose, and fix the problem from start(problem escalation) to finish (problem resolution) for each application?
3%

1 hour20%

2-4 hours

22%

5-7 hours
20%

8-10 hours
13%

11-12 hours
10%

13- 15 hours
4%

16-20 hours

8%

More than 20 hours
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Figure 6: Most Application Problems Require Between 5 and 7 Man-Hours to Solve

Unified Monitoring Comes Into Its Own

So while it is clear that most companies have under-invested in application-focused tools, the survey
also makes it clear that respondents have strong preferences regarding their APM “must haves.”• Almost 75% identify “flexible deployment options” (supporting SaaS, on-premises, and/or
hybrid deployments) as being either “Critical” or “Important” factors in making APM purchasing
decisions.
• More than 70% identify “ability to monitor infrastructure as a service(IaaS) public cloud” as being either “Critical” or “Important.”• Perhaps the most compelling outcome of the entire survey was the clear
choice for a “unified monitoring” platform. Defined for the purposesof the survey as an “Integrated monitoring platform consolidating
application and infrastructure monitoring in one solution,” respondentsidentified this as the most important feature consideration in making
an APM acquisition (see Figure 7).

Page 5©2015 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. | www.enterprisemanagement.com

Perhaps the mostcompelling outcome ofthe entire survey was theclear choice for a “unifiedmonitoring” platform.

Page 5

Application Performance Monitoring (APM), 2015

Industry Challenges, State of the Art, and the Case for Unified Monitoring

If your company were to purchase an Application Performance Management (APM)
product today, which features would be most important to you?
Integrated monitoring platform consolidating application andinfrastructure monitoring in one solution

33%

Cloud-readiness: features necessary to monitor/manage app
components hosted in public cloud29%

Support for trending and reporting

28%

Visibility to end user experience, i.e. performance/availability atthe endpoint

28%

Visibility to interactions between components in multi-tier
topologies (i.e. "who is talking to whom")

27%

Transaction tracing providing complete insight into transaction
paths and dependencies

25%

Auto-generated topology map of applications anddependencies which updates when changes occur

24%Role-based dashboards supporting multiple stakeholders (i.e.
DBAs, DevOps, Application Support)

23%
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Figure 7: Respondents Indicate a Clear Preference for a “Unified Monitoring” APM Platform

EMA Perspective

While adoption of APM tools has clearly lagged that of silo-focused tools, it is also clear that interest in
application-focused automation is gaining momentum. Applications have become far too complex tomanage with silo tools and primarily manual correlation.
At the same time, a new wave of APM solutions is coming to market. AppDynamics, for example, featuresunified monitoring, flexible deployment options, intelligent analytics, and role-based dashboards, among
other features. The new generation of products represented by AppDynamics also operates with anapplication-centric focus while supporting the latest technologies and platforms. The features are robust
enough to support both first line staff—those typically taking user calls—andLevel 2+ support teams whose task it is to maintain the stability of complex,
AppDynamics’
but fragile, production environments.
This survey demonstrates the fact that unified monitoring supporting both
application and infrastructure is the APM form factor of choice. EMA analysts
believe the reputation of APM platforms as being complex to install, timeconsuming to maintain, and requiring experts to “manage the managementtools” have all been factors slowing adoption of such products. Unified
solutions such as AppDynamics should minimize these concerns because theunified form factor means there are fewer components to install and maintain.
AppDynamics’ combination of unified monitoring, deployment options(with the central core of the product available as SaaS, but also capable ofrunning in the cloud or on-premises), and popular features put it among
the front runners of this new wave of APM.

Page 6©2015 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. | www.enterprisemanagement.com

combination of unified
monitoring, deploymentoptions (with the central
core of the productavailable as SaaS, butalso capable of running in
the cloud or on-premises),and popular features put
it among the front runnersof this new wave of APM.

Page 6

About Enterprise Management Associates, Inc.
Founded in 1996, Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) is a leading industry analyst firm that provides deep insight across the full spectrumof IT and data management technologies. EMA analysts leverage a unique combination of practical experience, insight into industry best practices,and in-depth knowledge of current and planned vendor solutions to help EMA’s clients achieve their goals. Learn more about EMA research,analysis, and consulting services for enterprise line of business users, IT professionals and IT vendors at www.enterprisemanagement.com orblogs.enterprisemanagement.com. You can also follow EMA on Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn.
This report in whole or in part may not be duplicated, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or retransmitted without prior written permissionof Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All opinions and estimates herein constitute our judgement as of this date and are subject to change
without notice. Product names mentioned herein may be trademarks and/or registered trademarks of their respective companies. “EMA” and“Enterprise Management Associates” are trademarks of Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. in the United States and other countries.
©2015 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. EMA™, ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES®, and themobius symbol are registered trademarks or common-law trademarks of Enterprise Management Associates, Inc.
Corporate Headquarters:
1995 North 57th Court, Suite 120
Boulder, CO 80301
Phone: +1 303.543.9500
Fax: +1 303.543.7687
www.enterprisemanagement.com
3180.062215