In the early 90’s with the growth of IP networks, there were many IP based element management tools along with many in the SNA space. The requirement initially was for a tool to consolidate the many screens of information and manage the many event streams. Existing MoM type tools were from the mainframe world. These existing MoM type tools were very complicated “frameworks”. They had many modules loosely connected and required vast amounts of professional services to maintain. The word “framework” became a very dirty word in the 90’s
These older tools were gradually replaced with modern MoM products throughout the 90’s.
Event Management had been conquered, but a growing requirement had been for a Service Level Management view of your infrastructure.
This wasn’t quite delivered properly by the late 90’s. Coincidentally at this time the large names out there had started buying up the independent software companies in the MoM and Performance Management space. Most of them had IPO’d already and the original founders were quite happy to “cash” out.
Now the cycle started to repeat itself. The big vendors, who had bought out the smaller successful companies who had formed in the 90’s, started to bolt these tools together in a very loose way. You once again had the return of the “framework”.
Clients from 2000 onwards were demanding Service Level views and what was coming to be called Service Assurance views. They wanted to monitor the quality of critical applications and services in their infrastructures.
The problem was that these new “frameworks” were built from internal products and many products that were acquired and then bolted together. They had different API’s, rules languages, databases and scripting languages. You might be able to deploy them and get a degree of Service Assurance data from them, but the cost was extremely high initially and ongoing. The overall extremely high TCO was starting to become glaringly obvious. Overall, these “frameworks” were not delivering the required Service Assurance information at technically or financially acceptable levels.
This was the new gap in the market. The ability to delivery required Service Assurance capability, but with acceptable costs. TCO had become a major decisive factor on top of the business requirement to monitor quality of services.