Workload Automation

Q1 2010 – An EMA Radar Report™

Summary

by Andi Mann

Enterprise Management Associates (EMA)

January 2010

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

Table of Contents

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1

The Workload Automation Landscape............................................................................................................1

Job Scheduling versus Workload Automation – A Question of Maturity..........................................1

Workload Automation Today ......................................................................................................................2

Job Scheduling - Grade A ...................................................................................................................3

IT Process Automation - Grade B....................................................................................................3

Resource Optimization - Grade C.....................................................................................................3

Business Integration - Grade D.........................................................................................................4

Predictive Analytics - Grade E...........................................................................................................4

Assessing the Workload Automation Market .................................................................................................5

Characteristics of a Preferred Solution......................................................................................................5

Deployment and Administration.......................................................................................................6

Cost Advantage.....................................................................................................................................6

Architecture and Integration ..............................................................................................................6

Functionality..........................................................................................................................................6

Vendor Strength....................................................................................................................................7

Evaluation Criteria .........................................................................................................................................7

Inclusion Criteria ..................................................................................................................................7

Exclusion Criteria .................................................................................................................................7

EMA Radar Report for WLA Vendors............................................................................................................8

The EMA RADAR™...................................................................................................................................9

EMA Radar Market Map for Workload Automation .............................................................................9

Value Leader ..........................................................................................................................................9

Strong Value........................................................................................................................................ 10

Specific Value...................................................................................................................................... 11

Exceptional Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 11

Best Overall ITSM Integration: BMC..................................................................................................... 11

Best Workload Management Integration: IBM..................................................................................... 11

Best Interface Design: OpsWise .............................................................................................................. 11

Best Automated Resolution: BMC .......................................................................................................... 12

Highest Rated Functionality: CA ............................................................................................................. 12

Most Scalable Architecture: ORSYP....................................................................................................... 12

Best Security Integration: CA ................................................................................................................... 12

Future Market Directions and Conclusion................................................................................................... 13

Event Correlation and the CMDB .......................................................................................................... 13

Service Catalog ............................................................................................................................................ 13

Dynamic Resource Allocation and Load Balancing............................................................................. 13

Predictive Analytics..................................................................................................................................... 14

Appendix A: The EMA Radar Report™ Methodology............................................................................ 15

EMA Radar Report: Workload Automation Q1 2010

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

Introduction

Workload Automation (WLA), the natural maturation of Job Scheduling to enable broader IT Service

Management, is not the sexiest technology in the data center, but few can argue the degree to which

other technologies and business objectives depend upon WLA. Most enterprises are poorly positioned

to exploit WLA for its layered advantages and, as a result, will endure longer and more frequent

outages in combination with unnecessary resource inefficiency. A strategic, modular, and compre-

hensive WLA implementation delivers rapid ROI and enables broader IT optimization that supports

business objectives.

The EMA Radar Report™ for Workload Automation evaluates current software solutions within

the framework of a broader WLA maturity roadmap. This tool assists end users in the selection of

WLA solutions that best fit their requirements. Because many enterprises incorrectly view WLA as an

isolated software solution, EMA strongly encourages end users to consider the strategic implications

of WLA within a broader ITSM framework before constructing a short list of candidates. The best

solution will always depend on how it correlates to an accurate list of weighted requirements. As a later

section describes, this report is based on scores across a broad set of such requirements and can act as

a preliminary guide for product evaluation.

Figure 1: Workload Automation Maturity Pyramid.

The Workload Automation Landscape

Job Scheduling versus Workload Automation – A Question of Maturity

For decades, job scheduling software has automated the tedious batch submission of IT workloads.

As the number and variety of platforms spread, “consolidated job scheduling” systems emerged

to simplify workflow management across the enterprise. Figure 1 shows the Workload Automation

EMA Radar Report: Workload Automation Q1 2010

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

Maturity Pyramid. Once we connect Consolidated Job Scheduling to the ITSM1 framework and add

adaptation, the true definition of Workload Automation emerges.

Workload Automation (WLA) is a mature evolution of job scheduling that automates complex

IT processing and includes support for event-driven workloads, multiple platforms, Web services,

composite applications, Service Oriented Architecture, virtual systems, dynamic resource allocation,

ITSM integration, and business service alignment.

Clearly, WLA addresses a much broader range of issues and concerns than Job Scheduling and these

issues are critical to the emerging requirements of tomorrow’s data center.

Workload Automation Today

The EMA WLA Radar Report includes a number of very promising solutions, but none has yet reached

the pinnacle of maturity. In measuring WLA maturity, five major factors come into play:

1. Job Scheduling – creating workflows across multiple platforms and applications

2. IT Process Automation – orchestrating ITIL process inputs and outputs

3. Resource Optimization – dynamic resource allocation, load balancing

4. Business Integration – linking IT services to business requirements, business impact analysis

5. Predictive Analytics – dynamic thresholding, heuristic monitoring

Figure 2 approximates the maturity of today’s WLA solutions. Job Scheduling itself is quite mature but

in other areas, even the best have lots more to accomplish.

WLA Maturity Factors

Average

Job Scheduling

Best

Business Integration

IT Process Automation

Predictive Analytics

Resource Optimization

Figure 2: Measuring Today’s WLA Maturity

1 ITIL defines IT Service Management (ITSM) as “The implementation and management of Quality IT Services that meet the

needs of the business. IT Service Management is performed by IT Service Providers through an appropriate mix of people,

Process and Information Technology.”

EMA Radar Report: Workload Automation Q1 2010

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to WLA evolution has been its saturation. Virtually every major IT organi-

zation has at least one job scheduling solution (usually many more). There are solutions for mainframes,

UNIX, Windows, CRM/ERP, file transfers, and others. Fitting Job Scheduling into the larger WLA

architecture is like building an aircraft carrier from a jet ski. How far has WLA progressed?

Job Scheduling - Grade A

Most vendors, large and small, deliver a robust set of Job Scheduling functions and features. The

differentiators are breadth of platform support, usability, and cost. If there is a weakness in this sub-

discipline, it may be dependency mapping across the enterprise.

IT Process Automation - Grade B

Many vendors claim “built-in” process automation and this makes a certain amount of sense in

products where scripted routines manage heterogeneous workloads. However, IT Process Automation

(ITPA) is much more inclusive than a few proprietary scripted routines. ITPA acts as a railroad service

with ITIL processes as the depots. WLA is just another spur of the railroad. For a flexible and open

integration to ITPA, WLA needs a communication layer between its Job Scheduler and its process

automation routines, and this communication layer exists for easy interface to external best-of-breed

ITPA solutions. There are WLA solutions that integrate with companion ITPA products, but these

integrations are not as open as they should be.

Resource Optimization - Grade C

Notoriously resource-intensive, job schedules often stretch their critical execution windows to the

limits and beyond with sometimes staggering consequences. Resource optimization, with its ability

to shift workloads to unused resources or actually expand the resource pool, not only prevents late

job finishes but reduces all critical windows. For example, when investment decisions depend on the

output from a workflow, each minute has a dollar value – sometimes a very large dollar value. Resource

optimization, through prioritization and dynamic resource allocation, recovers workflow minutes.

Mature Resource Optimization requires associated maturity in each of the following disciplines:

• Business Impact Analysis

• Business Integration

• Automated Provisioning

• Critical Path Analysis

• Workload Management

Several vendors in this Radar Report have advanced facilities for Resource Optimization. Vendors with

solutions that address each of the above five points include (in alphabetical order):

ASG

BMC

IBM

UC4

Unified Management Architecture, MetaCMDB, Business Service Platform

for Distributed Workload Automation, Dynamic Resource Allocation

Batch Impact Manager, Atrium CMDB, Atrium Orchestrator, BladeLogic

Critical Path Monitor, Job Resource Dependency Flow, Spectrum

Automation Manager, Service Assurance

Workload Service Assurance, z/OS WLM integration, Critical Path

Analysis, dynamic SAP job limit, Tivoli Workload Management, Automated

provisioning.

V8 Dynamic Resource Allocation, load balancing

EMA Radar Report: Workload Automation Q1 2010

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

In relation to Resource Optimization, the greatest shortcoming in current offerings is integration.

Though the individual pieces are, to various extents, present, vendors have largely failed to smoothly

orchestrate those pieces into an easily administered solution for Resource Optimization. Workload

business priorities are often hardcoded in job scheduling databases rather than in a Service Catalog/

CMDB. Critical Path Analysis is reactive rather than predictive. Topology discovery and dependency

mapping are often static, inaccurate, or limited.

That said, vendors have made enormous stride in this area and seem poised to extract more of its

potential business benefits.

Business Integration - Grade D

To manage workloads, one must be able to prioritize them so that operations staff can perform triage

during problem “storms.” Since the importance of a workload depends upon its business impact, priori-

tization requires a dynamic integration of IT service goals with business objectives. As axiomatic as

this may seem, most organizations struggle to implement and maintain effective Business Integration.

Clearly, WLA vendors understand that Business Integration is valuable since most have a Business

Impact Analysis function. Many offer interfaces specifically designed for business views and these

interfaces allow business units to assign priorities to workloads and workflows. These priorities, typically

resident in a job scheduling database, greatly benefit Workload Automation. However, business prior-

ities should not reside in a job scheduling database. They belong in a Service Catalog2 since business

service expectations extend beyond the WLA environment.

Business Integration is part of a complex three-way relationship between Applications, Infrastructure,

and Customers. Ultimately, the business must know the implications of any infrastructure or application

anomaly, and such knowledge is possible only when we overlay discovered topologies and dynamically

map dependencies.

Predictive Analytics - Grade E

In the case of Workload Automation, Predictive Analytics (PA) typically uses time series statistical

models (e.g., Box-Jenkins, autoregressive, or moving average) to forecast future variable behavior

based on a series of historical data points. The value of Predictive Analytics lies in its potential to

reduce manual maintenance of thresholds and to proactively prevent bottlenecks. Predictive Analytics

simplifies the growing body of automation upon which tomorrow’s data centers depend.

None of the surveyed vendors incorporates a true Predictive Analytics engine in their WLA solutions,

though a few have some limited and very specific PA capability.

On the horizon, IBM’s acquisition of SPSS bodes well for Tivoli’s PA future. BMC may have a head start

integrating its 2007 acquisition of ProactiveNet into Business Impact Manager. Likewise, UC4 added

predictive modeling with its acquisition of Senactive in 2007. CA, a veteran of Predictive Analytics

(remember Nugents?), now offers some predictive modeling and correlation with CA Spectrum

Infrastructure Manager (acquired from Concord) and CA eHealth Performance Manager. Obviously,

vendors understand the importance of PA for Business Service Management and EMA expects that

further acquisitions will bolster the modeling capabilities upon which Workload Automation will

eventually depend.

ITIL v3 defines a Service Catalogue [sic] as “a database or structured Document with information about all Live IT Services,

including those available for Deployment.” (Service Design)

EMA Radar Report: Workload Automation Q1 2010

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

Assessing the Workload Automation Market

Assessing the WLA market involves much more than tallying features and functions. EMA distributed

a 149-question survey to the targeted WLA vendors. The survey answers generated scores in 43 key

performance indicators. Those scores percolated into five Profile Scores that constituted a “spider”

diagram for each vendor. For a graphical cross-vendor comparison, we consolidated scores into three

categories and created the EMA Radar, which maps the vendors in the market.. Figure 3 shows the

general flow of data.

Aside from the questionnaire, EMA conducted detailed briefings with a focus on assessing ease of use

and functionality. The analysts conducting the research average more than two decades of technical

and architectural experience in data center automation, including Workload Automation.

Figure 3: Workload Automation Assessment

Characteristics of a Preferred Solution

EMA has designed its Radar Reports to assist end users in the selection of IT management software. It

is fundamental and critical that the reader understand this is a starting point for an in-depth evaluation,

rather than a finishing point. There is neither a single set of characteristics nor any single solution that

will satisfy all end users. The EMA WLA Radar Report grades solutions on a broad set of criteria.

The reader’s task is to find the criteria that matter the most and select those vendors that scored best

in those criteria. If the reader requires a solution that covers Unix and i5/OS, solutions that do not,

regardless of functionality, are extraneous.

As guidance, EMA has assigned a Profile Score to the solutions across each of 5 main categories (as

shown in Figure 3). Following is a brief description of each category.

EMA Radar Report: Workload Automation Q1 2010

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

Deployment and Administration

Data center automation projects are like fish; the longer they linger, the more we want to toss them in the

garbage. The duration and complexity of Workload Automation implementation varies by vendor and

by the final blend of functions, features, and integrations. For those organizations with limited staffing

resources and a mandate for quick ROI, this category is important because it answers critical questions:

• Does the solution deploy quickly and is the solution easy to administer?

• Does the vendor provide conversion utilities or services?

• How disruptive is the implementation process?

• Is there a good testing and migration facility?

• Does the vendor offer excellent customer support?

• How frequent are updates?

• How responsive is the vendor to code fixes?

Cost Advantage

Recently, there has been a growing emphasis on cost advantage as criterion for software evaluation.

Nonetheless, cost is typically not the primary consideration. Grades are based primarily on price and

licensing models. We asked each vendor to quote a price range for a common configuration. Where

vendors did not supply pricing, EMA interviewed a handful of customers to determine pricing for

this metric. Generally higher mainframe licence prices were levelled to approach a more equitable

comparison between vendors with and without mainframe solutions. Though the report does not

include the quoted prices, it uses the information for relative scores.

Note that this metric is essentially a measure of solution cost. It is not a measure of ROI, TCO, or overall

value. Moreover, many vendors will provide discounts on list prices. As such, readers must evaluate

requirements and, work with vendors on pricing, and evaluate value on many different criteria.

Architecture and Integration

This section matters a lot to some companies and not at all to others, but it addresses the capability

of the solution to manage complex infrastructure, application, and business frameworks into the

future. The report includes specifics about breadth of support for platforms and applications as well

as integration with CMDB, IT Process Automation, Load Balancing, event frameworks, and Managed

File Transfer. Many will find the support tables useful in building a short list of solutions that match a

targeted infrastructure.

Functionality

Frankly, the vendors in the WLA Radar Report scored well in product functions such as calendaring,

triggering, forecasting, alerting, security, reporting, trending, and logging. Also part of this category is

Ease of Use. Here, there was more variability. Some interfaces were gorgeous, smart, and easy while

others seemed a bit long in the tooth or cantankerous. Some were primarily graphical. Others were

primarily in list format. Most offered both. While the graphical interfaces frequently appeal to execu-

tives, managers, and casual users, the list interfaces, with their information density, often appeal to

administrators. Admittedly, this was the most difficult section to grade.

EMA Radar Report: Workload Automation Q1 2010

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

Vendor Strength

For many organizations, a Workload Automation vendor is a meaningful business partner and, as

such, requires vetting. The Vendor Strength section covers vision, strategy, financial strength, R&D,

partnerships, channels, and market credibility. Four of the eight vendors are public companies (BMC,

CA, IBM, and Cisco). The report had success in gathering data on all companies, though in the case of

some private vendors, this information is not disclosed.

Evaluation Criteria

EMA has divided the Workload Automation world into Job Scheduling Vendors and Workload

Automation vendors. As described in the earlier section, Workload Automation Today, we took a

straightforward approach to differentiation. In fact, we were a bit surprised at the inclusion of a very

small and very new vendor in this space.

Inclusion Criteria

For inclusion in the EMA Workload Automation Radar Report, a vendor had to offer the following as

part of its solution:

• Consolidated Cross-Platform Job Scheduling – Including the z/OS platform

• Resource Optimization – Some combination of workload management, dynamic resource

allocation, and load balancing pools

• ITSM Integration – Integration with some combination of IT Process Automation, CMDB,

Business Impact Analysis, event frameworks, and Managed File Transfer

Exclusion Criteria

If any vendors had failed to complete the questionnaire, they would have been excluded. Fortunately,

this did not occur.

Special Note: Hewlett-Packard, despite its prominence in Business Service Management, does not

appear in this study because HP does not offer a Job Scheduling solution. This seems an odd and

critical omission for a vendor with so much investment in ITSM software. Workload Automation is

critical, not because of its function, but because so many other functions depend on it, particularly

Service Levels.

EMA Radar Report: Workload Automation Q1 2010

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

EMA Radar Report for WLA Vendors

The EMA Radar Report for Workload Automation includes the following vendors (in alphabetical

order):

VENDOR

Advanced

Systems

Concepts

Arcana

ASG

BMC

IBM

OpsWise

ORSYP

ROC

SMA

Stonebranch

Tidal (Cisco)

UC4

PRODUCTS

ActiveBatch

adTempus

ASG-Zena

ASG-Zeke

ASG OpsCentral

ASG BSP Distributed Workload Management

ASG BSP Enterprise Workload Management

BMC CONTROL-M

BMC Service Impact Manager

BMC Atrium CMDB

BMC Atrium Orchestrator

CA Workload Automation

CA ESP Workload Automation

CA 7 Workload Automation

CA Autosys Workload Automation

CA Scheduler Job Management

CA Jobtrac Job Management

CA NSM Job Management Option

Tivoli Workload Scheduler (for distributed)

Tivoli Workload Scheduler for z/OS

Tivoli Dynamic Workload Broker

Tivoli Workload Scheduler for Applications

Tivoli Workload Scheduler LoadLeveler

Tivoli Dynamic Workload Console

Automation Center

Dollar Universe

UniJob

Maestro

OpCon/xps

Indesca

Infitran

Tidal Enterprise Scheduler

Tidal Intelligent Automation

Tidal Intelligent Reporting

Tidal Transporter

UC4 V8

UC4 Decision

UC4 Insight

UC4 ClearView

UC4 PrintView

UC4 KPI

EMA Radar Report: Workload Automation Q1 2010

ASG

Tidal

Medium

Low

Cost Efficiency

EMA Radar Market Map for Workload Automation

Interestingly, the survey respondents formed three clusters on the market map and these clusters

corresponded to three distinct maturity levels of Workload Automation:

1. Workload Automation solutions

2. Consolidated Job Scheduling solutions

3. Job Scheduling solutions

As one would expect, the Workload Automation cluster is in the upper right corner of the market map

while Job Scheduling is in the lower portion and Consolidated Job Scheduling lies in between the two.

Value Leader

In the WLA market, value leaders have flexible architectures, ITSM integration,

superb functionality, broad platform support, and pricing that yields the best

overall value. As part of that value, vendors have shown a vision of broader

operational efficiencies and innovation in one or more areas. Despite the maturity

of the Job Scheduling market, Workload Automation, with its complex cross-

process relationships, is somewhat juvenile by comparison.

There are no perfect WLA solutions. Each of our value leaders has weaknesses

and all show considerable promise, though often from different perspectives.

EMA Radar Report: Workload Automation Q1 2010

Strong

Value

Specific

Value

Limited Value

Vendor Strength

175

108

ORSYP

UC4

Opswise

High

ASCI

Stonebranch

ROC

Arcana

142

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

The EMA RADAR™

EMA Radar Report for Workload Automation

BMC

Value

Leader

175

142

108

IBM

SMA

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

BMC has the strongest product overall, scoring above average on functionality and higher than any

other vendor on architecture and integration. BMC is also one of only a few vendors to seriously

leverage CMDB technology for WLA Service Level Management. We especially praise BMC’s advanced

service-oriented problem diagnosis as workload failures are a common source of operational ineffi-

ciency and waste.

UC4 is a giant slayer for good reason. The UC4 WLA solution comes with an amazingly flexible and

scalable data-centric architecture, a state-conscious process automation engine, and perhaps the most

advanced implementation of application data awareness.

ORSYP garners special mention for its unique and innovative peer-to-peer architecture. Beyond

the architecture, ORSYP excels in job discovery through its use of UniJob and interfaces with an

impressive array of BSM frameworks. Also, ORSYP’s recent acquisition of Sysload brings robust

Workload Management capabilities to its suite.

Finally, we have included a brand new company in the Value Leader category – OpsWise. Their

Automation Center product, released in December 2008, is a marvel to behold. The founders took full

advantage of cutting-edge technology to construct an incredibly intuitive and attractive interface. With

broad platform support, this JavaScript, Web 2.0, cloud-friendly offering is worth watching.

Strong Value

CA has a long history in Job Scheduling and a prominent position in BSM. Not

surprisingly, their products had the highest functionality score of any evaluated

solutions, and their ITSM integration is impressive. CA has a formidable Workload

Management function and solutions for pretty much any customer.

IBM’s Tivoli Workload Scheduler is as functionally rich as almost any in the group

and their integration with Workload Management (Load Balancing and Dynamic

Resource Allocation) earns them a special award. This product is well-suited for

massively complex environments and heavy use.

ASG, with its Unified Management Architecture and MetaCMDB, seems to understand exactly where

Workload Automation is headed. Few can match ASG’s tight weave of IT service objectives and

business requirements.

Tidal, recently acquired by Cisco, brings a lot to the table. Tidal Enterprise Scheduler has broad platform

support, broad application support, very rich scheduling functions, and many points of integration.

For Windows environments, Tidal Intelligent Automation brings IT process automation for servers,

MS Exchange, and Active Directory.

SMA’s OpCon/xps reflects three decades of experience in Job Scheduling with its ease of use and

functionality. SMA’s history with Sperry and Burroughs now expands to almost every platform. This

is a solid solution for Consolidated Job Scheduling that includes IT Process Automation capabilities at

an attractive price point.

Advanced Systems Concepts Inc has a robust Consolidated Job Scheduling solution with a very slick

interface. ASCI’s ActiveBatch competes fiercely on price against larger vendors in the WLA landscape

and has a broad span of platform and application support.

EMA Radar Report: Workload Automation Q1 2010

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

Specific Value

Assigning a score to Stonebranch posed a particular challenge because their

product offering is unlike any other in the study. Indesca is a Consolidated Job

Scheduling solution in that it consolidates disparate Job Schedulers. Indesca is not,

however, a Job Scheduler. Rather, Stonebranch gives organizations the option to

use their product as an agnostic integrator of Job Schedulers, thus leveraging

existing resources, minimizing cost, and reducing project risk. Since Indesca is

not, itself, a Job Scheduler, the Stonebranch score only loosely correlates to the

value of the Indesca (and Infitran) solutions.

ROC Maestro for Open Systems consolidates cron and WinAT scheduling with simplicity, efficiency, and

functionality. This product installs very quickly and requires only an hour or two of training to operate.

Arcana adTempus is a Windows Job Scheduling solution that downloads from its Web site for $449 per

server. For small shops with a limited number of Windows servers, adTempus is a very accessible and

cost-effective pathway to impressive Job Scheduling functionality.

Exceptional Characteristics

To recognize exceptional characteristics in the Workload Automation market, the following products

have been highlighted:

Best Overall ITSM Integration: BMC

BMC wins this award for many reasons. To succeed in IT

Best Overall ITSM Integration

RADAR REPORT

Workload Automation Q1-2010

Service Management, IT must manage services according

to business requirements. For WLA, ITSM requires an

accurate and dynamic relationship between business risk and workload service levels.

In keeping with the precepts of ITIL, BMC uses its popular Atrium CMDB to maintain such a

relationship. Batch Discovery uses the CONTROL-M DB to build a CI (CMDB Configuration Item)

for the batch service and forms a relationship between that CI and all of the CIs for the components

where that service will run. This is far superior to an approach where business risk is hard-coded in the

scheduling database.

Best Workload Management Integration:

IBM

No other vendor has as much experience in Workload

Management as IBM. Not surprisingly, IBM’s Tivoli

Workload Scheduler earns special recognition for its integration with Workload

Management. With its Workload Service Assurance feature, IBM continually monitors each job’s critical

path in relation to business risk and dynamically allocates resources for business-optimal throughput.

Of course, IBM also tightly integrates with z/OS through its WLM Service Class settings.

RADAR REPORT

Best Workload Management

Integration

Workload Automation Q1-2010

RADAR REPORT

Best Interface Design: OpsWise

The OpsWise Automation Center interface is elegant,

attractive, and intuitive. It fully deserves this award not

only for these characteristics, but for its cutting-edge

Best Interface Design

Workload Automation Q1-2010

underpinnings and openness. From Web 2.0 services to contextual Wiki tutorials, this

interface is center ring.

EMA Radar Report: Workload Automation Q1 2010

Best Automated Resolution: BMC

BMC’s approach to automated diagnosis and resolution

of schedule incidents deserves special mention. With

Batch Impact Manager (BIM), BMC elevates us from Job

Best Automated Resolution

Workload Automation Q1-2010

RADAR REPORT

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

Scheduling to true service management. The user can relate service requirements to

jobs and BIM tracks status, estimated completion, deadline, slack time, etc. From the service view, the

user can open an analysis viewpoint and activate critical path filtering in order to focus on important

jobs. BIM predicts problems and allows what-if scenarios. Given the frequency of scheduling events

and the personnel resources required to resolve those events, BIM brings with it a very potent cost

justification.

Highest Rated Functionality: CA

With seven job scheduling products and decades of

experience in this segment, CA’s functional strength

should come as no surprise. On distributed platforms,

Highest Rated Functionality

Workload Automation Q1-2010

RADAR REPORT

mainframes, and across the ITSM process landscape, CA has added breadth to its depth

of capabilities. Workload Automation r11, combining the best attributes of several top tier products,

will further enhance CA’s functional dominance.

Best Security Integration: CA

As part of its WLA solution, CA includes an Embedded

Entitlements Manager. More than a tool, this is a commu-

Best Security Integration

Workload Automation Q1-2010

RADAR REPORT

nications layer for security management across the enter-

prise. In creating this very flexible and functional tool, CA brings decades of experience

in security, including z/OS, for the best security architecture, tool, and scope of coverage.

EMA Radar Report: Workload Automation Q1 2010

Most Scalable Architecture: ORSYP

Few architectures look simpler than peer-to-peer (P2P)

and ORSYP’s architecture looks so simple that one might

not properly credit its developers for its innovation. Under

Most Scalable Architecture

RADAR REPORT

Workload Automation Q1-2010

the covers, ORSYP implements numerous functions that give administrators an unblem-

ished sense of centralization. The architecture is lightweight, highly resilient, immensely scalable, and

easy to manage.

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

Future Market Directions and Conclusion

This report addresses two WLA customer classes. The first class of customer wants consolidated sched-

uling across a limited variety of platforms and applications and has only moderate concern for broader

ITSM integration. For such a customer, current vendors offer rich function, rapid implementation,

and attractive pricing. The other customer class faces the challenge of efficiently integrating complex

composite workloads into a massively heterogeneous ITSM framework. This high-end customer has a

list of requirements numbering in the hundreds and increasingly severe ROI limitations.

For such high-end customers to succeed, they must have a strategy. ROI depends on the alignment

of strategy with market directions and the modular implementation of that strategy. At this level, any

WLA strategy focuses much more on integration than on function. Frankly, job scheduling function-

ality is already robust and mature. After all, job scheduling established its operational value more than

three decades ago.

Workload Automation, unlike Job Scheduling, is not yet mature, but its development holds enormous

promise for further operational savings. The efficient management of complex composite workloads

spans many ITIL processes and technology silos. Organizations must understand the impact on job

workflows in the event of a component failure and then translate that impact to business requirements.

Without this knowledge, prioritization is little more than a guess.

Event Correlation and the CMDB

In the future, WLA will integrate tightly with event correlation. Correlation depends on dynamic

topology discovery and dependency mapping. The logical repository for this information is the

CMDB where the CIs for failing components have a clear relationship to workload service levels and

business risk.

Service Catalog

Workload prioritization critically impacts Service Level Management, Event Management, and Incident

Management. In essence, organizations cannot effectively manage workloads in the absence of an

associated business risk. As a stopgap, many WLA vendors now allow for hard-coded assignment

of risk levels to each workload. In some cases, this static operational value may percolate to business

service alerts. Aside from the inaccuracies associated with static values, one must question the validity

of operational staff assigning business risk. This is the province of the Service Catalog and mature

WLA solutions will enable business owners to establish risk dynamically within the Service Catalog. The

CMDB will correlate that risk to workload service levels and infrastructure component dependencies.

Dynamic Resource Allocation and Load Balancing

Many of today’s WLA solutions include load balancing and a few include integration with dynamic

resource allocation via automated provisioning and virtualization. Most of these solutions are somewhat

crude in their approach to prioritization, once again relying on hard-coded risk levels. Still, this area is

advancing rapidly and vendors grasp the importance of infrastructure abstraction and optimization.

One need only examine the average server utilization to likewise grasp its importance. When WLA

solutions incorporate APIs to best-of-breed automated provisioning and load balancing, customers

will have opportunities for huge savings in infrastructure and facilities.

EMA Radar Report: Workload Automation Q1 2010

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

Predictive Analytics

Workload optimization depends on performance monitoring and performance monitoring depends

on thresholds. However, dozens of static thresholds across thousands of components are notoriously

inaccurate and impossible to maintain. Further, bottleneck mitigation almost always follows business

impact. The answer is Predictive Analytics where thresholds vary according to historical performance

data and heuristic forecasts automatically prevent bottlenecks prior to business impact.

WLA is a long way from Predictive Analytics. The algorithms depend on complex regression models

and this level of automation has not earned the trust of IT management. EMA predicts a few false

starts in this area, but some vendor is going to get it right. Because of the complexity of this feature,

the first vendor with a workable, incremental solution will have a key competitive advantage.

EMA Radar Report: Workload Automation Q1 2010

IT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH,

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING

Appendix A: The EMA Radar Report™ Methodology

EMA defines criteria for the market to be evaluated and conducts primary research to develop a

list of vendors that meet these criteria. Initial product data is gathered through questionnaires and

vendor discussions. Basic data from relevant vendors is compiled into the EMA Solution Center for

the market evaluated.

EMA further defines a model client and uses this client perspective to conduct the Radar Report

evaluation. The list of vendors included in the Solution Center is narrowed to a final list based on:

1) product fit for the model client; ) customer feedback; and 3) EMA perception of market impor-

tance. Additional vendor/product data is collected through a combination of lab evaluations, demos,

additional vendor discussions and/or interviews with reference clients.

Collected data is evaluated based on a weighted analysis of the market criteria from the perspective

of the model client. Evaluations are reviewed with vendors and adjusted as warranted to provide

an accurate view of the vendors and their offerings and strategies. Final scores generate a graphical

depiction of each vendor/product based on the following five key dimensions:

1. Ease of Deployment & Administration – This dimension rates vendors on start-up cost

and effort as well as ongoing operational cost and effort. Ease of Deployment is measured

by scoring implementation timeframe, support, professional services, training, and auto-

discovery factors. Ease of administration and automation of management are measured for

the Administration component.

2. Cost Advantage – Considering licensing models, price for license as well as maintenance costs,

this dimension scores products on their relative price advantage when compared to others in

the market. Low price, flexible licensing model and reasonable maintenance costs are awarded

the highest scores.

3. Architecture & Integration – This dimension assesses the strength and extensibility of the

core architecture as well as the ease of integration and availability of existing modules for

integration with other products.

4. Functionality – This dimension assesses the features of the products on a number of important

factors for the product category. Completeness of the product features as well as ease of use

is measured.

5. Vendor Strength – This dimension considers not just the vendor’s financial strength and

presence in the market, but also their vision, market credibility and partnerships/channels to

reflect their overall strength as a supplier.

Each of the five dimensions result in a score of 0 - 100, with the highest possible total vendor score

being 500.

To provide a market wide comparison, this data is summarized by contrasting the Product Strength

against the Cost Efficiency of the products evaluated. Product Strength is the combined scores for

Functionality and Architecture & Integration. Cost Efficiency is the combined scores for Ease of

Deployment & Administration and Cost Advantage.

The EMA Radar Report represents EMA analysis of how certain vendors measure against criteria for

that marketplace, as defined by EMA. EMA does not endorse any vendor, product or services, and

does not advise technology users to select only those vendors placed in the “Value Leaders” category.

EMA Radar Report: Workload Automation Q1 2010

About Enterprise Management Associates, Inc.

Founded in 1996, Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) is a leading industry analyst firm that specializes in going “beyond the surface” to provide deep

insight across the full spectrum of IT 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 its clients achieve their goals. Learn more about EMA research,

analysis, and consulting services for enterprise IT professionals and IT vendors at www.enterprisemanagement.com or follow EMA on Twitter.

This report in whole or in part may not be duplicated, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or retransmitted without prior written permission of

Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All opinions and estimates herein constitute our judgement as of this date and are subject to change without notice.