The document summarizes findings from a 2011 survey on application performance management (APM). Key findings include: 1) Over 60% of organizations spend too much time troubleshooting performance issues and want to identify issues before they affect users. 2) Top challenges for APM include management costs, usability of performance data, and lack of transaction monitoring across IT infrastructure. 3) Capabilities like single-platform monitoring and in-screen metrics are driving new adoption of APM tools. 4) Time to value, ease of use, and demonstrated effectiveness are top evaluation criteria for APM solutions.

1. < ^ Z K WD
/

2. ^
^ Z ^ d
W W d ^ dK
dZ Z d WD
Z
• dZ Z ^ WD D
• W WD
–h
–d W
• Y

3. Application Performance
Management
-2011 survey findings-
Bojan Simic
President and Principal Analyst, TRAC Research
© 2011 TRAC Research

4. Blind spots
Web browser 46%
VM 41%
Mainframe 36%
User device 34%
Public Internet 29%
Application components 27%
© 2011 TRAC Research

5. Top challenges
Time spent on troubleshooting
performance issues 63%
Identify performance issues before
they affect end users 61%
Management cost 48%
Usability of application performance
data 42%
Visibility into the quality of end-user
experience 39%
Inability to monitor each transaction
across IT infrastructure 38%
© 2011 TRAC Research

6. Challenges for monitoring user experience
Monitoring performance of 3rd-party
components 58%
Inability to customize performance
views for different stakeholders 54%
Monitoring direct impact of new
technology rollouts 47%
Lack of visibility into application
usage 46%
Lack of visibility into in-screen
transactions 40%
© 2010 TRAC Research

7. Challenges for transaction monitoring
Monitor transaction from the point of
user interaction to where transaction
71%
is processed
Management overhead
64%
Track the transaction into 3rd party
environment 52%
Monitor transaction performance
without modifying application code 41%
Monitor transactions across multiple
data centers 37%
© 2010 TRAC Research

8. Key capabilities driving new adoption
Network and app performance
monitoring delivered through a
34%
single platform
Visibility into in-screen metrics
29%
Automated corrective actions
triggered when performance doesn't
22%
meet requirements
Dynamic application dependency
mapping 19%
Open APIs for APM solution
18%
© 2010 TRAC Research

9. Key evaluation criteria
Time to value 73%
Ease of ongoing management 63%
Demonstrated effectiveness in
relevant usage scenarios 61%
Scalability 49%
Ease of deployment 46%
Depth of application coverage 43%
Pricing model 38%
© 2010 TRAC Research

10. By the numbers…
43% of organizations are reporting that APM tools are not
enabling them to align IT with business goals
Organizations that are taking a transaction-centric approach
for application performance monitoring are 76% more likely
to reduce time spent on isolating the root cause of
application performance incidents
Organizations that have key capabilities in place are able to
manage 3x more users per help-desk FTE as compared to
others
© 2010 TRAC Research

11. W
WD

12. d
d
W W
/^W
W
s W ^
t
D ^ ^ ^ D
/^W
^
E
E
t D t E
^ K D
^
• ' ^ Z h D
• sD

13. d
d
W W
/^W
W
s W ^
t
D ^ ^ ^ D
/^W
sD
^ sD E ^
E
t D t E
^ K D
^
• ' ^ Z h D
• sD

14. d
W W
d
• Z
•
• ^
W W
• / /^W
• W
s W • ^ • W
t • E : ^
D ^ ^ ^ D •
/^W
• W • E
: Ed •
• W
• •E • / •
^• ^ ^Y t
E •/
•K
• ^
E
t D t E
^ K D
•
• K WKW
• W
• • E
•
• ^D^

15. W /
Z

16. t WD / z
s

17. d W : W
h
LEVEL 5
P E R VA S I V E
LEVEL 4
•
OPTIMIZED
LEVEL 3
• h
EFFECTIVE
LEVEL 2 • Z
• h
AWA R E
LEVEL 1 •
•
REACTIVE h •
•
• • /
•
h
• W
• Z
• W
Business
Agility and
• d Optimize Competitiv
Prioritize App IT e Edge
by Performan
EUE ce
Business
Visibility
Impact

18. D WD D ^
^ E
“Competitive advantage!” “Agility!”
•D •
•
• •
•K
W
K Y
“Stability!”
• “Quality!”
• •d K^
•
•
•d
•K

19. W h W
s
d
W W
/^W
W
s W ^
t
D ^ ^ ^ D
/^W
^
E
E
t D t E
^ K D

20. h ^
^ d
t

21. h
Z
W

22. K W
h

23. z

24. h W
^
•
•
•K
•

25. W
d W
D

26. t d W
D
Monitor transaction from the point of
user interaction to where transaction
71%
is processed
Management overhead
64%
Track the transaction into 3rd party
environment 52%
Monitor transaction performance
without modifying application code 41%
Monitor transactions across multiple
data centers 37%

27. W d
W W s
d
W W
/^W
W
s W d ^
t W D
D ^ ^ ^
/^W
^
E
E
t D t E
^ K D

28. W d /
D
from noise
to data
to meaning

29. d s
In Browser
Metrics
3rd Party
Database
Frontend
Backend

30. , d WD
t

31. t

32. t
^

33. '
d d d
^

34. d d d
^
Z d
Z d ,
,
^ Z
D D
,

35. d

36. , K Z
• Enable application centric operations
• Understand complex infrastructure
• Intelligent error detection
• Correlate across all layers

37. ^ , /
h
• Analyze user behavior
• Understand performance impact on users
• Get performance metrics for individual
actions
• Get impact of performance issues on users

38. W /
DddZ
• Easy access to production information
• Get “development level” details
• Transactional data instead of averages
• Understand distributed application
dynamics

39. t
Time spent on troubleshooting
performance issues 63%
Identify performance issues before
they affect end users 61%
Management cost 48%
Usability of application performance
data 42%
Visibility into the quality of end-user
experience 39%
Inability to monitor each transaction
across IT infrastructure 38%

40. / ^
W
Upstream Optimization
Development Test Production
Downstream Optimization

41. W
W d
W/ ^
/ Z

42. ^ ^
W
d
d
W
/

43. h W W
/
/
d
s

44. d W
W ^
•
• K
• W ^
• W
• /

45. W ^
h
d W W
s
d
W W
/^W
W
s W d ^
t W D
D ^ ^ ^
/^W
^
E
E
t D t E
^ K D

46. d, E zKh

47. Y
D
• /
• Z
• Z
• ^
• Z
• /
• /
• Z ^ W

48. TRAC Research
Bojan Simic
President Principal Analyst
TRAC Research, Inc.
781.878.7493
Find us at: bojan.simic@trac-research.com
TRAC Research
www.trac-research.com
© 2010 TRAC Research