Discovery and Dependency Mapping-CMDB/CMS: The Synergies Are There!
October 07, 2019

Dennis Drogseth
EMA

Share this

OK, I admit it. "Service modeling" is an awkward term, especially when you're trying to frame three rather controversial acronyms in the same overall place:

■ Configuration management database (CMDB)

■ Configuration management system (CMS) – a more federated CMDB

■ Discovery and dependency mapping (DDM)

Nevertheless, that's exactly what we did in EMA's most recent research: Service Modeling in the Age of Cloud and Containers. We also put a strong focus on how AIOps and IT analytics more broadly, intersected with service modeling for good or for ill. As the data in our webinar later this month will show, the goal was to establish a more holistic context for looking at the synergies and differences across all these areas.

Methodology and Collection

The data was collected in August of this year across a global population in North America, Europe and Asia with 398 respondents. As you will see from some of the highlights here, one of the goals was to examine the data from multiple points of view, including role-related perceptions and success rates, along with more standard contexts for analysis such as company size, geography, and verticals.

A Firm Thumbs Up

Admittedly, we didn't set a quota for nay-sayers, and maybe we should have, as many of our respondents strongly indicated that the valued service modeling in one or multiple of the relevant form factors (CMDB, CMS or DDM). Their top reasons for valuation were:

Application performance management

Infrastructure optimization

Cloud migration and digital transformation tied for third place.

Asset management and financial optimization also loomed large throughout the research, as well, especially in terms of stakeholder support.

What's Really Being Deployed?

For our research, we required some form of modeling to be in play so participants could answer our questions credibly. Given that criterion, when we asked, "What was deployed in your organization?" we got this spread from our respondents:

■ CMDB + DDM – 43%

■ CMS (standalone) – 21%

■ CMDB (standalone) – 15%

■ DDM (standalone) – 12%

■ CMS + DDM – 10%

Interestingly enough, those 65% of respondents indicating that DDM was in play, also showed us that on average, more than two DDM solutions were deployed in their IT organization, with 20% claiming four or more. The reason for this was use-case driven. For instance, having both a real-time performance-aware DDM solution, as well as DDM capabilities more expressly directed at service-aware asset management or cloud migration.

What's Optimal in Deployment?

How does a CMDB-DDM integration work together? The optimal answer there is "bi-directionally," meaning that more real-time DDM tools can update the CMDB or CMS, while the DDM solution can gain added contextual insights from configuration item (CI-related) data and attributes. With this in mind, 45% of respondents indicated some level of bi-directional DDM-CMDB/CMS integration, which strongly correlated with success in achieving their strategic goals.

The Service Modeling/AIOps Handshake

Our research also focused on the growing role of AIOps, sometimes known as "IT operations analytics" (ITOA). In fact, 80% of our respondents indicated that AIOps was either fully active, or in deployment, which correlated with more progressive CMDB, CMS and DDM adoptions, as well as strategic success rates overall. The data underscored the fact that artificial intelligence and machine learning are continuing to become less of a science project and more of a platform-driven resource that can help bring value in both unifying and transforming IT.

The Human Factor

Not surprisingly, what you learn about CMDB/CMS and DDM deployments depends to a large degree on who ask. This is partly because of service modeling's wide-ranging strategic value, which often touches many varied roles and stakeholders differently. For instance, our data here showed that:

■ Role-based perceptions (asset management, operations, ITSM, etc.) indicate telling and often predictable differences in use cases, buying priorities, and other areas.

Type-of-involvement differences underscored the fact that executive or managerial oversight had the greatest breadth of vision in terms of what was deployed, while hands-on technical support came second, and stakeholders were least aware.

■ The executive suite was 2x more likely to see CIOs as driving service modeling strategies and buying decisions as all other groups.

As EMA pointed out in its book CMDB Systems: Making Change Work in the Age of Cloud and Agile, (Dennis Drogseth, Rick Sturm, Dan Twing. Elsevier, 2015) service modeling touches on so many roles and stakeholders that perceptions are bound to vary, much like the story of the blind men and the elephant.


Success and EMA's "More Syndrome"

As with other EMA research, those respondents who indicated that they were extremely successful in achieving their strategic goals followed what I now call the "More Syndrome." This included factors such as more use cases, more stakeholder roles, more analytics and automation integrations, more asset data, more best practices in play, etc.

Indeed, both this research and EMA's consulting shows that successful IT organizations evolve across multiple technologies and profit from their synergies. Service modeling capabilities are especially central to this equation, given their rich variety of use cases and the context they can provide for analytics, automation, monitoring, discovery, service catalogs, and other IT-related technology investments.

In the webinar on October 29, I'll be able to share far more insights surrounding these and other top findings and seek to place them in context to help you navigate across your current choice of options and priorities for technology, process and approach in your service modeling investments.

Dennis Drogseth is VP at Enterprise Management Associates (EMA)
Share this

The Latest

October 17, 2019

As the data generated by organizations grows, APM tools are now required to do a lot more than basic monitoring of metrics. Modern data is often raw and unstructured and requires more advanced methods of analysis. The tools must help dig deep into this data for both forensic analysis and predictive analysis. To extract more accurate and cheaper insights, modern APM tools use Big Data techniques to store, access, and analyze the multi-dimensional data ...

October 16, 2019

Modern enterprises are generating data at an unprecedented rate but aren't taking advantage of all the data available to them in order to drive real-time, actionable insights. According to a recent study commissioned by Actian, more than half of enterprises today are unable to efficiently manage nor effectively use data to drive decision-making ...

October 15, 2019

According to a study by Forrester Research, an enhanced UX design can increase the conversion rate by 400%. If UX has become the ultimate arbiter in determining the success or failure of a product or service, let us first understand what UX is all about ...

October 10, 2019

The requirements of an APM tool are now much more complex than they've ever been. Not only do they need to trace a user transaction across numerous microservices on the same system, but they also need to happen pretty fast ...

October 09, 2019

Performance monitoring is an old problem. As technology has advanced, we've had to evolve how we monitor applications. Initially, performance monitoring largely involved sending ICMP messages to start troubleshooting a down or slow application. Applications have gotten much more complex, so this is no longer enough. Now we need to know not just whether an application is broken, but why it broke. So APM has had to evolve over the years for us to get there. But how did this evolution take place, and what happens next? Let's find out ...