Skip to main content

Skipping Application Monitoring is the Biggest Anti-Pattern in Application Observability

Chris Farrell

Anti-patterns involve realizing a problem and implementing a non-optimal solution that is broadly embraced as the go-to method for solving that problem. This solution sounds good in theory, but for one reason or another it is not the best means of solving the problem.

A common example of this involves gasoline and rising prices. As prices go up, consumers tend to avoid getting gas as long as possible, until they are running on fumes. In reality, the best way to save money during this time would be to fill up your tank every chance you get.

Anti-patterns are common across IT as well, especially around application monitoring and observability. One that is particularly prevalent is in response to the increasing complexity of cloud-native infrastructure and applications. The [suboptimal] idea is that the best way to monitor modern applications is to not install monitoring, but rather have developers manually code in their own monitoring capabilities, put all the data into logs, and solve problems by analyzing custom dashboards and the resulting log files.

The reality is that this concept tends to lead to a multitude of visibility gaps, and can even send SWAT teams down the wrong path, depending on what's instrumented, collected and shown. The worst case would be application slow-downs, or even outages, occurring — all while the dashboards show "all systems green."

The problem with anti-patterns is that a popular idea can gain ground, even if the solution is suboptimal. For the afore-mentioned gasoline issue, it might take some math on a napkin to show how a different process can save money. For IT monitoring strategies, it might take a little bit more. To understand when a specific solution or process is an anti-pattern — and how to solve the problem in a more optimal way, it's important to recognize what led to the situation, the ultimate goal, and then open up to different solutions.

What Caused the Application Monitoring Anti-Pattern?

In the case of cloud-native application performance, the problem is that legacy application monitoring tools, which require continuous configuration and even some manual coding to reach their full value proposition, can lead to slow-downs in the DevOps and continuous integration / continuous deployment (CI/CD) process by requiring reconfiguration every time an update is released. There's always a chance that if the new reconfiguration isn't done (and done right), that the tool will not have the right data to either recognize a problem or solve it.

This is what has led many to eschew the idea of a monitoring tool and, instead, have their developers instrument monitoring into the code and simply analyze everything in logs themselves. Ultimately, they recognize the time consuming and menial work log analysis is, but it's seen as the lesser of two evils when compared to constant reconfiguration of monitoring.

But this isn't exactly optimal, itself. If the developers don't capture the right information at the right time, then the log analysis strategy is just as iffy as an unconfigured APM tool. Meanwhile, the only way to understand how any two pieces fit together is to bring the entire team into the analysis phase, which probably means even bigger bridge calls than with just the APM swat team approach.

Finding A Better Solution

As with any anti-pattern, including our real-world example above, the way to find an optimal solution is to start with the goal and make sure you're working towards that goal. In the gasoline example, people generally equate less frequent purchases as spending less, but if they instead focus on the actual cost itself, they can recognize an alternative that better achieves their goal of minimizing costs.

The same is true in application monitoring. The goal is to get the most immediate feedback on any software update, to proactively understand when a problem is occurring and easily, and quickly, solve the problem.

IT teams know that they want:

■ Monitoring up and down the cloud-native stack

■ Understanding within monitoring when changes occur

■ Access to data (and understanding) from a broader set of stakeholders

Certainly, the idea of developers coding, monitoring, and tracing, coupled with direct log analysis by every stakeholder, meets the above — but does it truly achieve the ultimate goals of Dev+Ops when it comes to operating their applications?

Let's tackle the problems and misconceptions of this observability anti-pattern:

Configuring monitoring is hard — no one wants to spend the time or investment needed to even get going with a monitoring tool.

We agree, it can be hard. But there are monitoring and observability solutions that automate the hard part (we promise, they exist). You shouldn't avoid the idea of monitoring because of the traditional hurdles involved in setting this up.

We can provide data for everyone to use! No observability tool needed. What does providing a firehose of all data to all users create? A lot of time wasting, inefficiency, and non-focused analysis.

The problem here is: If you provide all the data to a user, it will take forever to sort through what is relevant to them. Or, if you provide only the specific data related to the application they care about for example, they won't have the context needed to fully understand the situation.

What if an issue isn't the application itself, but a specific user?

What if there were previous outages for this application?

Monitoring solutions, after being implemented, can provide data with accurate context, automatically, so you can view your applications in the scope of everything else going on.

How can a monitoring / observability solution enable intelligent decision-making? How do we make it so the right people get the right data and make the best decisions they can?

These are the questions to be asking and the real challenges to solve for. A modern monitoring solution can help answer these questions when they offer:
- Real-time automation
- Automation of configuration
- Data within context
- A machine learning engine that improves and delivers data to all other AIOps platforms too

Legacy monitoring solutions have led organizations astray, thinking they can save time, effort, and cost by not implementing APM into cloud-native architectures. But modern monitoring solutions were designed for these modern environments and are the actual best way in which organizations can save time, effort and money, while empowering the entire IT team.

The Latest

Pilots are everywhere, stakeholders are seeking results, businesses are pushing for new tools, and IT teams are being asked to make AI secure, reliable, and useful at scale. But as organizations move from testing AI to operationalizing it, many are discovering that the biggest barrier is not the model, the use case, or even the budget. It is the file data foundation within ...

Fast or cheap? For most of my career in engineering, speed and quality sat on opposite ends of a seesaw. The "OR" in "fast or cheap" was non-negotiable. It was expected that pushing for faster releases meant that something in quality would give way. Tightening quality controls meant the schedule slipped. Every engineering leader I know has lived some version of that tradeoff ... The seesaw is starting to level out ...

I have been building enterprise software for more than 20 years ... One thing stays true across all of it: You do not find out your foundation is wrong during the crisis. You find out when the debt comes due. For a lot of organizations, that bill is arriving now. New research ... puts hard numbers on something practitioners have been sensing for a while. The telemetry problem isn't coming. It's already here ...

The rapid growth of AI workloads is pushing traditional log management approaches to their limits, according to The State of Log Management 2026 report from Dynatrace. Modern logs have become critical to understanding, validating, and securing AI-driven decisions, helping organizations ensure reliability, compliance, and performance at scale. However, the volume and complexity of AI telemetry are overwhelming legacy tools ...

For years, secure connectivity has relied on a familiar pattern: route traffic back to centralized gateways, inspect it, and then allow access. This model worked when applications lived in a handful of data centers and users were largely confined to offices. That model is now under strain. Applications are distributed across clouds, users connect from everywhere, and real-time workloads demand performance that centralized inspection points struggle to deliver. As traffic volumes grow and latency expectations shrink, routing everything through a small number of control points has become both a performance bottleneck and a resilience risk. The future of secure connectivity requires a different approach ...

The AI experimentation phase is over, and the private cloud is where enterprise AI workloads are being deployed for security and scale, according to Private Cloud Outlook 2026, a new report from Broadcom ... 2026 marks an acceleration into a full AI tipping point. The shift is being shaped by three forces — costs, complexity, and control — that public cloud environments are increasingly failing to address for production AI at scale. Key findings from the report include ...

44% of organizations have reported an outage in the past year tied to suppressed or ignored alerts, and 78% had at least one incident where no alert was fired at all ... Engineers learned about failures from customers. That gap between what our tools report and what our customers experience is the problem DevOps teams have been quietly solving with GenAI tooling, even as most enterprises continue to run their NOCs on manual alert triage ...

Cloud outages are usually described as technical failures. When a service goes down, a dependency breaks, or a region has issues, the focus immediately shifts to infrastructure. But if you look closely at how these incidents actually unfold, the root cause is rarely the technology itself. It is almost always tied to decisions made earlier, during design, implementation, or day-to-day operations. The system behaves the way it was built. The real question is how it was built ...

77% of leaders say their teams need AI skills urgently. 64% say their organization plans to train current employees rather than hire new ones. So far, so reasonable. The part that surprised me is who's been put in charge: 34% of those leaders say IT and engineering own the AI skills mandate. Learning and Development or HR own it at 7% of organizations. That's roughly five-to-one in favor of the people who understand the tools, over the people whose actual job is teaching adults how to learn new ones ...

In the ever-evolving digital landscape, enterprises are increasingly focused on enhancing their observability stacks to gain deeper insights into their IT environments. Observability has become a cornerstone of modern IT operations, enabling organizations to monitor, diagnose, and optimize their systems with unprecedented precision. However, a critical piece of the puzzle often goes unnoticed in this transformation: IBM i ...

Skipping Application Monitoring is the Biggest Anti-Pattern in Application Observability

Chris Farrell

Anti-patterns involve realizing a problem and implementing a non-optimal solution that is broadly embraced as the go-to method for solving that problem. This solution sounds good in theory, but for one reason or another it is not the best means of solving the problem.

A common example of this involves gasoline and rising prices. As prices go up, consumers tend to avoid getting gas as long as possible, until they are running on fumes. In reality, the best way to save money during this time would be to fill up your tank every chance you get.

Anti-patterns are common across IT as well, especially around application monitoring and observability. One that is particularly prevalent is in response to the increasing complexity of cloud-native infrastructure and applications. The [suboptimal] idea is that the best way to monitor modern applications is to not install monitoring, but rather have developers manually code in their own monitoring capabilities, put all the data into logs, and solve problems by analyzing custom dashboards and the resulting log files.

The reality is that this concept tends to lead to a multitude of visibility gaps, and can even send SWAT teams down the wrong path, depending on what's instrumented, collected and shown. The worst case would be application slow-downs, or even outages, occurring — all while the dashboards show "all systems green."

The problem with anti-patterns is that a popular idea can gain ground, even if the solution is suboptimal. For the afore-mentioned gasoline issue, it might take some math on a napkin to show how a different process can save money. For IT monitoring strategies, it might take a little bit more. To understand when a specific solution or process is an anti-pattern — and how to solve the problem in a more optimal way, it's important to recognize what led to the situation, the ultimate goal, and then open up to different solutions.

What Caused the Application Monitoring Anti-Pattern?

In the case of cloud-native application performance, the problem is that legacy application monitoring tools, which require continuous configuration and even some manual coding to reach their full value proposition, can lead to slow-downs in the DevOps and continuous integration / continuous deployment (CI/CD) process by requiring reconfiguration every time an update is released. There's always a chance that if the new reconfiguration isn't done (and done right), that the tool will not have the right data to either recognize a problem or solve it.

This is what has led many to eschew the idea of a monitoring tool and, instead, have their developers instrument monitoring into the code and simply analyze everything in logs themselves. Ultimately, they recognize the time consuming and menial work log analysis is, but it's seen as the lesser of two evils when compared to constant reconfiguration of monitoring.

But this isn't exactly optimal, itself. If the developers don't capture the right information at the right time, then the log analysis strategy is just as iffy as an unconfigured APM tool. Meanwhile, the only way to understand how any two pieces fit together is to bring the entire team into the analysis phase, which probably means even bigger bridge calls than with just the APM swat team approach.

Finding A Better Solution

As with any anti-pattern, including our real-world example above, the way to find an optimal solution is to start with the goal and make sure you're working towards that goal. In the gasoline example, people generally equate less frequent purchases as spending less, but if they instead focus on the actual cost itself, they can recognize an alternative that better achieves their goal of minimizing costs.

The same is true in application monitoring. The goal is to get the most immediate feedback on any software update, to proactively understand when a problem is occurring and easily, and quickly, solve the problem.

IT teams know that they want:

■ Monitoring up and down the cloud-native stack

■ Understanding within monitoring when changes occur

■ Access to data (and understanding) from a broader set of stakeholders

Certainly, the idea of developers coding, monitoring, and tracing, coupled with direct log analysis by every stakeholder, meets the above — but does it truly achieve the ultimate goals of Dev+Ops when it comes to operating their applications?

Let's tackle the problems and misconceptions of this observability anti-pattern:

Configuring monitoring is hard — no one wants to spend the time or investment needed to even get going with a monitoring tool.

We agree, it can be hard. But there are monitoring and observability solutions that automate the hard part (we promise, they exist). You shouldn't avoid the idea of monitoring because of the traditional hurdles involved in setting this up.

We can provide data for everyone to use! No observability tool needed. What does providing a firehose of all data to all users create? A lot of time wasting, inefficiency, and non-focused analysis.

The problem here is: If you provide all the data to a user, it will take forever to sort through what is relevant to them. Or, if you provide only the specific data related to the application they care about for example, they won't have the context needed to fully understand the situation.

What if an issue isn't the application itself, but a specific user?

What if there were previous outages for this application?

Monitoring solutions, after being implemented, can provide data with accurate context, automatically, so you can view your applications in the scope of everything else going on.

How can a monitoring / observability solution enable intelligent decision-making? How do we make it so the right people get the right data and make the best decisions they can?

These are the questions to be asking and the real challenges to solve for. A modern monitoring solution can help answer these questions when they offer:
- Real-time automation
- Automation of configuration
- Data within context
- A machine learning engine that improves and delivers data to all other AIOps platforms too

Legacy monitoring solutions have led organizations astray, thinking they can save time, effort, and cost by not implementing APM into cloud-native architectures. But modern monitoring solutions were designed for these modern environments and are the actual best way in which organizations can save time, effort and money, while empowering the entire IT team.

The Latest

Pilots are everywhere, stakeholders are seeking results, businesses are pushing for new tools, and IT teams are being asked to make AI secure, reliable, and useful at scale. But as organizations move from testing AI to operationalizing it, many are discovering that the biggest barrier is not the model, the use case, or even the budget. It is the file data foundation within ...

Fast or cheap? For most of my career in engineering, speed and quality sat on opposite ends of a seesaw. The "OR" in "fast or cheap" was non-negotiable. It was expected that pushing for faster releases meant that something in quality would give way. Tightening quality controls meant the schedule slipped. Every engineering leader I know has lived some version of that tradeoff ... The seesaw is starting to level out ...

I have been building enterprise software for more than 20 years ... One thing stays true across all of it: You do not find out your foundation is wrong during the crisis. You find out when the debt comes due. For a lot of organizations, that bill is arriving now. New research ... puts hard numbers on something practitioners have been sensing for a while. The telemetry problem isn't coming. It's already here ...

The rapid growth of AI workloads is pushing traditional log management approaches to their limits, according to The State of Log Management 2026 report from Dynatrace. Modern logs have become critical to understanding, validating, and securing AI-driven decisions, helping organizations ensure reliability, compliance, and performance at scale. However, the volume and complexity of AI telemetry are overwhelming legacy tools ...

For years, secure connectivity has relied on a familiar pattern: route traffic back to centralized gateways, inspect it, and then allow access. This model worked when applications lived in a handful of data centers and users were largely confined to offices. That model is now under strain. Applications are distributed across clouds, users connect from everywhere, and real-time workloads demand performance that centralized inspection points struggle to deliver. As traffic volumes grow and latency expectations shrink, routing everything through a small number of control points has become both a performance bottleneck and a resilience risk. The future of secure connectivity requires a different approach ...

The AI experimentation phase is over, and the private cloud is where enterprise AI workloads are being deployed for security and scale, according to Private Cloud Outlook 2026, a new report from Broadcom ... 2026 marks an acceleration into a full AI tipping point. The shift is being shaped by three forces — costs, complexity, and control — that public cloud environments are increasingly failing to address for production AI at scale. Key findings from the report include ...

44% of organizations have reported an outage in the past year tied to suppressed or ignored alerts, and 78% had at least one incident where no alert was fired at all ... Engineers learned about failures from customers. That gap between what our tools report and what our customers experience is the problem DevOps teams have been quietly solving with GenAI tooling, even as most enterprises continue to run their NOCs on manual alert triage ...

Cloud outages are usually described as technical failures. When a service goes down, a dependency breaks, or a region has issues, the focus immediately shifts to infrastructure. But if you look closely at how these incidents actually unfold, the root cause is rarely the technology itself. It is almost always tied to decisions made earlier, during design, implementation, or day-to-day operations. The system behaves the way it was built. The real question is how it was built ...

77% of leaders say their teams need AI skills urgently. 64% say their organization plans to train current employees rather than hire new ones. So far, so reasonable. The part that surprised me is who's been put in charge: 34% of those leaders say IT and engineering own the AI skills mandate. Learning and Development or HR own it at 7% of organizations. That's roughly five-to-one in favor of the people who understand the tools, over the people whose actual job is teaching adults how to learn new ones ...

In the ever-evolving digital landscape, enterprises are increasingly focused on enhancing their observability stacks to gain deeper insights into their IT environments. Observability has become a cornerstone of modern IT operations, enabling organizations to monitor, diagnose, and optimize their systems with unprecedented precision. However, a critical piece of the puzzle often goes unnoticed in this transformation: IBM i ...