Skip to main content

Rating the Industry Players

EMA Introduces the First Business Service Management (BSM) Service Impact Radar

On the last day of June, Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) published a new report which should be of interest to any user of BSM technology – the “EMA Radar For Business Service Management: Service Impact”. Written by Dennis Drogseth, Vice President of EMA, the report is designed to help IT organizations more effectively plan for the adoption of solutions that deliver a unified view of IT service performance as it impacts business outcomes.

EMA defines BSM Service Impact as a technology market in which vendors have their deepest roots in end-to-end service monitoring with strong business impact analysis capabilities that include but are not usually limited to Service Level Management (SLM). User experience management and/or application-to-infrastructure interdependencies are also common capabilities.

The report covers 14 vendors that Drogseth calls the “BSM Service Impact elite”. These vendors are AccelOps, ASG, CA, Compuware, FireScope, HP, IBM, Interlink, Netuitive, Novell, OPNET, OpTier, Prelert and Zyrion.

None of the vendors paid EMA to be in the report. They were all invited to go through a rigorous evaluation process, which included a lengthy questionnaire, dialog, demos, reviews and interviews with several customer deployments. Several other vendors were also invited to take part in the process but chose not to.

A Decision-Making Guide

The report is meant to be a decision-making guide, and that indicates who the BSM Service Impact Radar is written for.

“The nature of the market is not about a tool that somebody goes off and uses in the corner, it favors a more executive decision point because it is about a portfolio that allows for organizations to function more efficiently,” Drogseth explains. “And that means some thinking about what your objectives are across multiple groups. So the report is optimized for those individuals that tend to be either architects, executives or in some cases process-related experts with some service management association.”

The heart of the report is the BSM Service Impact Radar Bubble chart that illustrates how vendors cluster in terms of combined scores based on architectural and functional product strengths vs. cost efficiency. The “Value Leaders” had the highest scores, and are clustered in the top right of the chart. “Strong Value” companies are the next level, and they all had fairly high scores as well.

Vendors were also evaluated on “Vendor Strength” indicated by the size of the bubble on the chart, and this score was based on the vendor’s vision, strategy, financial strength and partnerships. This type of representation was chosen so that the Vendor Strength did not impact the mapping of the products on the chart, since this type of evaluation can favor larger vendors in terms of vision or financial strength.

Although the report scores the vendors, the Radar notes, “Far more important than scores, or even, strictly speaking, visual clusters, is understanding the design points of the individual vendors themselves and how they relate to your requirements in pursuing a more cohesive way to manage and align your most critical business services.”

This report is the first BSM Service Impact Radar, and Drogseth expects this to become a regular report. If not annually, published every 18 to 24 months.

The report is available free of charge for now, and more detailed profiles of each of the vendors in the report are also available from EMA for a fee.

To find out how each vendor scored, click here to read the BSM Service Impact Radar summary.

To gain more insight into the BSM Service Impact Radar, click here to read BSMdigest’s exclusive interview with Dennis Drogseth of EMA.

Hot Topics

The Latest

I've spent a lot of time in the channel, and one thing I keep coming back to is this: a partner program is only as good as what it looks like in the field. Many programs look great on paper, but when a partner is in front of a customer navigating a complex hybrid environment or trying to make the case for AI-powered observability, the gap between what a vendor promises and what it actually delivers becomes very clear, very fast ...

Enterprises today operate in a real-time environment where uninterrupted access to trusted data has become a baseline expectation for users, applications and automated systems. Traditional DataOps models, built on manual effort and human triage, cannot keep pace with this always active demand. AI agents are emerging as the operational backbone, ensuring consistent data availability, reinforcing trustworthiness and enabling a level of scale that manual processes cannot achieve ...

For decades, trust in the digital workplace rested on familiar signals. We trusted faces on video calls, voices on the phone, and emails that appeared to come from people we knew. These cues felt human and intuitive. They anchored how decisions were made, approvals were granted, and access was authorized. AI-powered deepfakes have quietly broken that model ...

Cloud migration was supposed to be a one-way door. For most enterprises, it turns out it isn't. Cloud data repatriation is a real and growing trend. A new survey ... finds that 89% of organizations plan to expand their on-premises infrastructure footprint over the next two years — and 75% have already moved at least some workloads back from public cloud in the past 24 months. The findings point to a broad rethinking of where data belongs ...

Over the past few years, large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized the software industry. Given their ability to excel at multi-step reasoning, LLMs have helped enterprises streamline workflows and adapt to the unknown. However, employing such models comes with sky-high costs, latency issues, and limited flexibility. In the realm of IT operations, it is generally wiser to employ smaller, domain-specific models instead ...

For years, DevOps teams operated under a simple assumption: collect enough telemetry, and you can find and fix any problem. That assumption is breaking down. Modern enterprises now operate across microservices, hybrid cloud environments, APIs, Kubernetes, and highly automated delivery pipelines. Releases happen continuously, dependencies shift constantly, and failures spread faster than teams can diagnose them ...

New Relic surveyed IT and engineering leaders from the media and entertainment (M&E) sector to understand what's working — and where challenges persist with their observability practices. The findings reveal how M&E organizations are navigating rising platform complexity, audience expectations, and AI-driven change. Below are five takeaways that stand out ...

Let me start with something I've seen play out more times than I can count. A team hits a wall with the cloud. Costs creep up, then spike. Performance starts to feel inconsistent. Someone in finance asks a simple question like "why did this double?" and nobody has a clean answer ... Maybe this isn't the right place for everything. That realization feels like a breakthrough, like you've identified the problem. In reality, you've just identified the starting line ...

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 24, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses network observability tool sprawl ... 

In cloud-native systems, scaling is often as simple as moving a slider. For on-premise databases, the stakes are different. Over-provisioning hardware is expensive. Under-provisioning leads to performance bottlenecks that are difficult to fix once the equipment is in the rack ...

Rating the Industry Players

EMA Introduces the First Business Service Management (BSM) Service Impact Radar

On the last day of June, Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) published a new report which should be of interest to any user of BSM technology – the “EMA Radar For Business Service Management: Service Impact”. Written by Dennis Drogseth, Vice President of EMA, the report is designed to help IT organizations more effectively plan for the adoption of solutions that deliver a unified view of IT service performance as it impacts business outcomes.

EMA defines BSM Service Impact as a technology market in which vendors have their deepest roots in end-to-end service monitoring with strong business impact analysis capabilities that include but are not usually limited to Service Level Management (SLM). User experience management and/or application-to-infrastructure interdependencies are also common capabilities.

The report covers 14 vendors that Drogseth calls the “BSM Service Impact elite”. These vendors are AccelOps, ASG, CA, Compuware, FireScope, HP, IBM, Interlink, Netuitive, Novell, OPNET, OpTier, Prelert and Zyrion.

None of the vendors paid EMA to be in the report. They were all invited to go through a rigorous evaluation process, which included a lengthy questionnaire, dialog, demos, reviews and interviews with several customer deployments. Several other vendors were also invited to take part in the process but chose not to.

A Decision-Making Guide

The report is meant to be a decision-making guide, and that indicates who the BSM Service Impact Radar is written for.

“The nature of the market is not about a tool that somebody goes off and uses in the corner, it favors a more executive decision point because it is about a portfolio that allows for organizations to function more efficiently,” Drogseth explains. “And that means some thinking about what your objectives are across multiple groups. So the report is optimized for those individuals that tend to be either architects, executives or in some cases process-related experts with some service management association.”

The heart of the report is the BSM Service Impact Radar Bubble chart that illustrates how vendors cluster in terms of combined scores based on architectural and functional product strengths vs. cost efficiency. The “Value Leaders” had the highest scores, and are clustered in the top right of the chart. “Strong Value” companies are the next level, and they all had fairly high scores as well.

Vendors were also evaluated on “Vendor Strength” indicated by the size of the bubble on the chart, and this score was based on the vendor’s vision, strategy, financial strength and partnerships. This type of representation was chosen so that the Vendor Strength did not impact the mapping of the products on the chart, since this type of evaluation can favor larger vendors in terms of vision or financial strength.

Although the report scores the vendors, the Radar notes, “Far more important than scores, or even, strictly speaking, visual clusters, is understanding the design points of the individual vendors themselves and how they relate to your requirements in pursuing a more cohesive way to manage and align your most critical business services.”

This report is the first BSM Service Impact Radar, and Drogseth expects this to become a regular report. If not annually, published every 18 to 24 months.

The report is available free of charge for now, and more detailed profiles of each of the vendors in the report are also available from EMA for a fee.

To find out how each vendor scored, click here to read the BSM Service Impact Radar summary.

To gain more insight into the BSM Service Impact Radar, click here to read BSMdigest’s exclusive interview with Dennis Drogseth of EMA.

Hot Topics

The Latest

I've spent a lot of time in the channel, and one thing I keep coming back to is this: a partner program is only as good as what it looks like in the field. Many programs look great on paper, but when a partner is in front of a customer navigating a complex hybrid environment or trying to make the case for AI-powered observability, the gap between what a vendor promises and what it actually delivers becomes very clear, very fast ...

Enterprises today operate in a real-time environment where uninterrupted access to trusted data has become a baseline expectation for users, applications and automated systems. Traditional DataOps models, built on manual effort and human triage, cannot keep pace with this always active demand. AI agents are emerging as the operational backbone, ensuring consistent data availability, reinforcing trustworthiness and enabling a level of scale that manual processes cannot achieve ...

For decades, trust in the digital workplace rested on familiar signals. We trusted faces on video calls, voices on the phone, and emails that appeared to come from people we knew. These cues felt human and intuitive. They anchored how decisions were made, approvals were granted, and access was authorized. AI-powered deepfakes have quietly broken that model ...

Cloud migration was supposed to be a one-way door. For most enterprises, it turns out it isn't. Cloud data repatriation is a real and growing trend. A new survey ... finds that 89% of organizations plan to expand their on-premises infrastructure footprint over the next two years — and 75% have already moved at least some workloads back from public cloud in the past 24 months. The findings point to a broad rethinking of where data belongs ...

Over the past few years, large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized the software industry. Given their ability to excel at multi-step reasoning, LLMs have helped enterprises streamline workflows and adapt to the unknown. However, employing such models comes with sky-high costs, latency issues, and limited flexibility. In the realm of IT operations, it is generally wiser to employ smaller, domain-specific models instead ...

For years, DevOps teams operated under a simple assumption: collect enough telemetry, and you can find and fix any problem. That assumption is breaking down. Modern enterprises now operate across microservices, hybrid cloud environments, APIs, Kubernetes, and highly automated delivery pipelines. Releases happen continuously, dependencies shift constantly, and failures spread faster than teams can diagnose them ...

New Relic surveyed IT and engineering leaders from the media and entertainment (M&E) sector to understand what's working — and where challenges persist with their observability practices. The findings reveal how M&E organizations are navigating rising platform complexity, audience expectations, and AI-driven change. Below are five takeaways that stand out ...

Let me start with something I've seen play out more times than I can count. A team hits a wall with the cloud. Costs creep up, then spike. Performance starts to feel inconsistent. Someone in finance asks a simple question like "why did this double?" and nobody has a clean answer ... Maybe this isn't the right place for everything. That realization feels like a breakthrough, like you've identified the problem. In reality, you've just identified the starting line ...

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 24, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses network observability tool sprawl ... 

In cloud-native systems, scaling is often as simple as moving a slider. For on-premise databases, the stakes are different. Over-provisioning hardware is expensive. Under-provisioning leads to performance bottlenecks that are difficult to fix once the equipment is in the rack ...