Ema Wla q2 2012 Radarreport CA

7/30/2019 Ema Wla q2 2012 Radarreport CA

1/18

EMA Radar for Workload Automation

(WLA): Q2 2012

Report Summary & CA Technologies Prole

By Torsten Volk, Senior Analyst

Enterprise Management Associates (EMA)

June 2012


2/18

Table of Contents

2012 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

I

EMA Radar for Workload Automation (WLA): Q2 2012

Report Summary & CA Technologies Profle

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1Research Methodology...................................................................................................................... 1

What Changed Since the Q1 2010 Workload Automation Radar .................................................... 2

State o the Discipline in 2010 .................................................................................................... 2

Progress since 2010 ..................................................................................................................... 3

Customer Perspective: Real Lie Workload Automation ................................................................... 5

Shiting WLA Business Requirements .............................................................................................. 7

Workload Automation and Cloud .................................................................................................... 7

Core Capabilities in 2012: Its all about the Business Service ............................................................ 8

Architecture & Integration .......................................................................................................... 8Architecture.........................................................................................................................8

Integration .......................................................................................................................... 8

Functionality ............................................................................................................................... 9

Deployment & Administration ................................................................................................... 9

Deployment ........................................................................................................................9

Administration .................................................................................................................... 9

Cost Advantage ........................................................................................................................... 9

Vendor Strength .......................................................................................................................... 9

Vendors Included in this Report ..................................................................................................... 10

raditional WLA Vendors ......................................................................................................... 10

Challengers ................................................................................................................................ 10

Specic Solution Vendors .......................................................................................................... 10

Workload Analytics ................................................................................................................... 10

Evaluation Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 10

EMA 2012 Workload Automation Radar Results ........................................................................... 11

Key Changes Compared to the 2010 WLA Radar Report ........................................................ 11

Value Leader: CA echnologies ................................................................................................. 12

CA echnologies Prole .................................................................................................................. 12


3/18


1



IntroductionIn todays age o cloud and I-as-a-Service, the importance o Workload Automation (WLA) as

the evolution o job scheduling, and its sister discipline I Process Automation (IPA), has growntremendously. As a new chapter opens in enterprise I, where business-unaware technology silos no longercount as a valid excuse or SLA violations1, the ENERPRISE MANAGEMEN ASSOCIAES(EMA) team regards automation WLA and IPA as the glue that keeps business processes tightlyintegrated. Operating systems, middleware, databases, applications, and business services are simplytechnical necessities that must be orchestrated to support and streamline these business processes in themost ecient manner.

While this EMA Radar Report is ocused on WLA solutions, the integration o these individualsotware packages with IPA constitutes an important evaluation criterion, as the separation o bothdisciplines WLA and IPA is an articial one. o truly automate entire business processes, WLA andIPA have to work together harmonically.

a) WLAis commonly considered an activity that takes place deep in the data center, controlledby an inner circle o aging mainrame wizards, also oten reerred to by business stakeholdersas the data center maa. Te data center maa usually knows very little about the businessimpact o WLA and is notorious or only contacting business stakeholders to let them knowwhy a certain request cannot be ullled in a timely manner.

b) ITPA, oten also reerred to as run book automation, can be described as the automatedexecution o a set o tasks to address a specic planned or unplanned situation. All thevarious steps that have to be taken or processes such as sta onboarding, application releasemanagement, or weekly backups all under IPA.

Since the previous EMA Workload Automation Radar Report in 2010, most vendors have recognized

the above requirement to integrate WLA and IPA in order to eectively support business processes.

Research MethodologyTe major challenge o this type o market evaluation is to avoid creating a simple eature comparison.EMA is aware that in order to be valuable or the end customer, any analyst report must thoroughlyresearch and consider the client perspective. Enterprise I is generally about solving actual customerchallenges. Tereore, each sotware eature is only relevant or this report, i it solves a specic andimportant business problem.

o remain entirely objective, this EMA Radar Report is based on a comprehensive survey with over600 data points that can, or the most part, be measured unambiguously. All survey questions were

ounded on customer eedback and vendor responses, and thoroughly veried by a sequence o productdemonstrations and end customer interviews.

EMA acknowledges that in WLA, as well as in most other arenas o enterprise I, there is no one bestsolution or every customer. Tereore, EMA has evaluated each product along ve dimensions:

1 Service Level Agreement - For more detail on the importance of SLAs, please take a look at the following article:

http://www.enterprisemanagement.com/web/ema_ac0312.php

1. Functionality2. Architecture & Integration3. Deployment & Administration

4. Cost5. Vendor Strength
http://www.enterprisemanagement.com/web/ema_ac0312.phphttp://www.enterprisemanagement.com/web/ema_ac0312.php


4/18


2



Based on these ve dimensions, a potential client might select a solution that oers only average scoresin terms o unctionality, but is easily deployed, requires minimal maintenance, and costs signicantly

less than some o the unctionality leaders.Providing guidance along these ve dimensions will enable potential clients to determine whichsolutions to look at more closely. Tis can mean narrowing down the eld to only three vendors, or itcould mean to also include lower cost alternatives into the RFP process. Tis report will have achievedits purpose, i EMA has provided the potential WLA customer with the background knowledge and guidancenecessary to confdently make this pre-selection decision.

What Changed Since the Q1 2010 Workload

Automation RadarTe previous EMA Workload Automation Radar Report was released in the rst quarter o 2010 based on data gathered throughout Q4 o 2009 and revealed the ollowing key ndings:

State of the Discipline in 2010Many vendors had achieved excellent job scheduling capabilities, but only ew were able to oereven basic IPA and business integration capabilities.2 No vendor was able to include advancedSLA-capabilities that were driven by predictive analytics algorithms and able to autonomously managethe critical path (see Figure 1).

2 Business integration is referred to as the ability to link IT services to business requirements (Business Impact Analysis).


5/18


3



Figure 1: 2010 WLA Radar Findings

As Figure 1 shows, WLA in 2010 was still a long way away rom being able to truly automate entireprocesses. echnology silos, a lack o awareness o a workloads business impact, and a lack o predictiveanalytics capabilities did not allow customers to achieve their ultimate goal o resource optimization

and agile I services delivery.

Progress since 2010When reevaluating the marketplace over two years later, signicant progress can be seen compared tothe 2010 WLA Radar Report (see Figure 2). Cloud and the concept o service-driven I were the maincatalysts or this progress.

Resource optimization: It is the main goal o any organization to receive the best possible ROIrom its I investments. o realize this ROI, each physical resource has to be utilized to its optimaldegree and waste has to be eliminated. o achieve optimal usage, all storage, network, compute, andsotware resources have to be pooled. Trough pooling, these resources are abstracted rom theirunderlying physical inrastructure and thereore can be dynamically assigned to users almost in real

time. Tis ability to rapidly distribute enterprise I resources based on near real-time requirementsbrings the data center one important step closer to resource optimization.

IT Process Automation: Automatically provisioning, managing, and decommissioning hardwareand sotware resources, based on end user requests issued through a service portal ensures theultimate degree o I agility. Tis agility allows the organization to turn I into a true businessdierentiator, by enabling end users to proactively utilize I resources to the companys advantage.


6/18


4



Business Integration: Since the 2010 Radar, there has been signicant progress in terms ointegrating WLA products with the overall business management environment. Most vendors now

oer connectors or service management solutions, CMDBs, BI & Big Data packages, systemsmanagement sotware, as well as or VMware vSphere and or the Amazon EC2 cloud. WLAhas come a long way rom being an isolated discipline to becoming a good citizen that is wellintegrated with its neighbors in the data center and in the cloud.

Predictive Analytics: Te act that ve out o this years six Value Leaders either oer their ownpredictive analytics engine or integrate with erma Sotware Labs JAWS3 analytics solution showsthe tremendous progress that was made in workload analytics since the last Radar Report. Vendorshave recognized that oering predictive analytics is a true dierentiator or their products, as it is acritical precondition or making WLA business process-aware.

Job Scheduling: Job scheduling already was mature at the time o the previous Radar Report.However, EMA can still report minor improvements in terms o job triggers, alerting, and API

comprehensiveness this time around.

Figure 2: WLA Maturity in 2012

3 See page 14 for more detail on JAWS.


7/18


5



Customer Perspective: Real Life Workload

AutomationTere oten is a signicant gap between what analysts and vendors claim is important in WLA andwhat customers actually ask or. During the course o creating this research report, EMA has talked tocountless vendor representatives, but even more importantly, to numerous actual customers. Te gapbetween where customers currently are in their I evolution and where analysts and vendors think theyshould be, is best described by taking a brie look at EMAs maturity model or WLA (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: EMA WLA Maturity Model

Most o todays enterprise customers have achieved a state o consolidated job scheduling where mostor all batch jobs are centrally managed, dynamically triggered based on various types o events, and ableto manage the transer o les.

Faced with user demand or I-as-a-Service, more and more businesses are starting the journey to amore proactive and connected approach, also reerred to as journey to the cloud. Tis journey


8/18


6



includes the addition o IPA components, a business portal (dashboard), the ability to prioritize WLAissues based on their business impact4, intelligent event correlation to identiy events that are relevant

to a specic problem, and nally, some orm o CMDB.5

Dynamic Automation (heuristic thresholds, SOA, ease-o-use) and Resource Optimization (ResourcePools, Automated Provisioning, Load Balancing) at the very top o the maturity model, can be consideredas the ultimate goals o workload automation and enterprise I in general. Te growing educationaround and adoption o cloud has contributed to a rapidly rising awareness o the importance o datacenter automation and resource optimization.

When talking to WLA customers, EMA has ound that there is no such thing as a general homogenousstate o the discipline. In many cases, even some o the largest WLA deployments have not evenconsidered the adoption o any advanced WLA technologies that go beyond simple batch schedulerconsolidation. In other instances, EMA ound that advanced analytical capabilities are deployed andend users are able to monitor relevant workfows through a business portal.

Due to this heterogeneity o user requirements, there can be no one best WLA solution or everyone.EMA encourages readers to keep in mind their organizations workload history, maturity, and specicrequirements, when looking at the various evaluation charts and vendor proles that are eatured inthis report (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Formula for WLA Requirements Prole

Te sobering act that a majority o organizations still reers to WLA as job scheduling demonstrates theimportance o considering this ormula, beore committing signicant unds to acquiring a WLA package.

4 Business Impact Analysis5 EMA is aware of the controversy around the term CMDB; however, in order to effectively manage change within a large

enterprise IT environment, there must be a system in place that automatically tracks these changes and issues alerts,

when vital dependencies are in the process of being violated.


9/18


7



Shifting WLA Business RequirementsTe reasons or many organizations to move up the WLA maturity model described in the previous

paragraph result rom increased business stakeholder demands:

Shorter batch windows: As most I organizations are required to provide 24x7 access to real-timedata-driven enterprise applications, batch windows are constantly decreasing. It is no longer acceptableto restrict access to entire business applications during o-peak hours, while the necessary backgroundprocessing happens.

Immediate processing requests: In the early mainrame days, batch jobs were oten only processedonce per week, month, or even quarter. In modern enterprise I environments, users oten expectinstant or near instant results, when they submit service requests.

Transparency: oday, it is oten no longer acceptable or business stakeholders to learn o workloadproblems when business critical applications ail, due to a lack o input rom the WLA system. In many

organizations business service management (BSM) dashboards still turn a blind eye toward WLA. Tisoten leads to unanticipated application ailures, as missed job processing windows are not monitored.

Service Level Management: When SLAs are missed, there mostly is a direct cost to the organization,as well as an opportunity cost. Te direct cost can usually be translated into a dollar value, while theopportunity cost is oten expressed in terms o customer dissatisaction.

Regulatory requirements: PCI DSS 6, HIPAA7, and SOX8 are three common types o regulations thatmodern organizations are routinely audited or. Tereore, it is essential or WLA solutions to providecomprehensive audit trails o all job streams.

Documentation: In reality and despite all the talk about true WLA as opposed to job scheduling,scripts Perl, Cron, Windows and application and operating system specic schedulers are still

around in most companies. Tis oten leads to documentation nightmares, resulting in serious businesschallenges when sta members leave the organization.

Tese business demands all go in line with todays trend toward I-as-a-Service or cloud, where resourcesare available instantaneously, or example through Amazon EC2 or Salesorce.com.

Workload Automation and CloudTe term cloud can be described as a new I paradigm, making data center resources available todevelopers and business users, in a near real-time manner. Tis almost instantaneous availability oresources and applications allows business stakeholders to harness I to quickly implement solutionsthat translate into strategic dierentiators or the organization.

In order to implement a private or hybrid cloud, the ollowing core components are needed:a) Virtualization

b) IPA and WLA

c) Sel-service portal

6 Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards7 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 19968 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


10/18


8



A virtualization layer is introduced to pool the data centers compute, network, storage, and sotwareresources. Pooling these resources makes them granular and portable, so that they can be easily combined

and provisioned based on specic end-user requests.In a nutshell, introducing the cloud to the organization results in the elimination o technical andtechnological excuses or why a business critical I project may not be easible. Considering thecriticality o many o these I projects within todays business environment, eliminating project barriersoten has a direct impact on the corporate bottom line.

Te corporate cloud consists o numerous point solutions service catalog, charge back, provisioning,monitoring, liecycle management, patch management, asset management, conguration management,compliance management that are tied together into one consistent sel-service oering by WLA andits sister discipline IPA. In the ideal case, most end-user requests can be ullled in a sel-servicemanner and in near real-time.

Core Capabilities in 2012: Its all about the Business

ServiceDuring this years WLA Radar research, EMA has determined a balance between current WLArequirements as they are perceived by end users and requirements guided by recent developments inenterprise I, such as the rise o the cloud and advanced business service management. Please keepin mind that these categories were weighed dierently, depending on their importance to a business-driven WLA solution.

Architecture & IntegrationArchitecture

Disaster protection Process automation capabilitiesWorkload virtualization and distribution System interaces: GUI, web service, mobile application, command line, Windows client Scalability, perormance and reliability

Integration

Platorm support BI and Big Data support Cloud support Enterprise application integration Comprehensive API Cloud and virtualization platorm integration Managed le transer


11/18


9



Functionality Critical path monitoring

Predictive analytics and orecasting Service level management and business awareness Sel-service portal riggering and conditional logicAlerting Security modelWhat-i scenariosAuto remediation Logging and auditability Ease-o-use Mobile device support Help resources Root cause analysis

Deployment & AdministrationDeployment

Ease-o-implementation Conversion toolsJob stream discovery raining requirements

Administration

Console ease-o-use

Upgrade process Liecycle managementAutomation o management

Cost Advantage Flexibility o cost model ransparency o cost model Cost or various scenariosAdministration cost Implementation cost Integration cost

Vendor Strength Vision Strategy Financial strength Research and development Channel and partnerships Market credibility


12/18


10



Vendors Included in this Reportodays WLA marketplace can be divided into three major segments:

Traditional WLA VendorsTese vendors conceived their WLA products during the mainrame days in the 1970s and 1980s.Over time, each one o them acquired capabilities to provide WLA or distributed environments. Alltraditional WLA vendors also oer a ull portolio o business service management solutions.

At the time o EMAs evaluation, numerous critical updates to the IBM ivoli Workload Scheduler werepending release. As the platorm was still evolving, IBM declined to participate in the product comparison.

Members o this group: ASG, BMC, CA echnologies

Challengers

Tese are newer solutions that lack the deep experience and massive legacy deployments o the ourtraditional vendors, but oten bring disruptive new elements to the table, such as liecycle management,advanced analytics, easy-to-use Web-based user interaces, or agents that can be combined with multiplescheduling servers.

Members o this group:ASCI, Cisco, MVP, ORSYP, Stonebranch, UC4

Specic Solution VendorsMembers o this group oer attractively priced solutions that apply to more specic problem sets, suchas Windows-only scheduling, advanced le transer, and advanced business workfows.

Members o this group: Arcana, Flux, Network Automation

Workload Analyticserma Sotware Labs (erma) plays a distinct role within this EMA Radar, as ermas sotwareprovides real-time predictive analytics and service level monitoring or three o the above vendors: CAechnologies, Cisco, and Stonebranch. erma JAWS can be seen as an add-on, transorming these threeWLA solutions, into truly business aware automation tools.

Evaluation CriteriaEach product eature had to ulll the ollowing three criteria to be credited with a capability score:

General availability: Te eatures needed to be generally available with the solution set at thetime o the evaluation. Features that were in beta testing or were scheduled to be included in later

releases o the management suite were not eligible or consideration.

Included in Cost: All eatures that were part o the evaluation had to also be priced into thetotal product cost. For example, i one vendor included connectors or BI and Big Data with thestandard product package, while another vendor oered these connectors at an extra cost, EMAadded this extra cost to the pricing or this report.

Documentation: All reported eatures had to be clearly documented in publicly available resources,such as user manuals or technical papers, or verication.


13/18


11



EMA 2012 Workload Automation Radar ResultsTe total product value is dened by comparing the overall product strength o each WLA solution

(y-axis o Figure 5) with its cost eciency (x-axis o Figure 5). Product Strength combines evaluationscores or Functionality and Architecture & Integration, Cost Eciency is calculated rom thescores achieved rom the Cost Advantage and Deployment & Administration categories. Te size oeach vendors bubble indicates the vendor strength as identied in the individual reviews.

Figure 5: WLA Bubble Chart

Key Changes Compared to the 2010 WLA Radar ReportWhen comparing the new chart with the previous one that was compiled in 2010, EMA can make theollowing observations:

Tis time, EMA included our additional vendors: MVP, Flux, and Network Automation.

Stonebranch and Opswise merged.

CA echnologies and Cisco are now Value Leaders.

ASCI has jumped rom its old location close to Selective Value to its new location, bordering theValue Leader category.


14/18


12



Value Leader: CA TechnologiesCA Technologies: With its vast customer-base, comprising o numerous global organizations across

all industries and with a unctionality score very close to BMCs, CA Workload Automation is one othe premier products in this eld. Due to excellent process automation capabilities, integration witherma JAWS or workload analytics, solid integration with CA echnologies ISM portolio, verygood cloud support, and its service oriented architecture that can easily be integrated with the clientsexisting enterprise I inrastructure, CA echnologies has obtained the status o a Value Leader inthis WLA Radar Report.

CA Technologies Profle

IntroductionCA echnologies was ounded in 1976 and changed its name rom Computer Associates International,Inc. in 2006. CA echnologies obtained the AutoSys distributed job scheduler through its $3.5 billionacquisition o Platinum echnology International in 1999. AutoSys was originally developed in 1992by AutoSystems, which was acquired by Platinum in 1995.

oday, CA echnologies distributed scheduling solution is called CA Workload Automation. CAechnologies has a deep workload automation portolio with CA Workload Automation AE or distributedplatorms, and CA Workload Automation CA7 Edition, and CA Workload Automation ESP Edition ormainrame environments. All CA Workload products are centrally controlled through CAs WorkloadControl Center. In the early 1990s, AutoSys was one o the rst workload automation products to enableresource pooling (workload virtualization); a long time beore the emergence o the cloud.


15/18


13



Architecture & IntegrationDue to its service-oriented architecture, CA Workload Automation can centrally manage a vast

variety o enterprise workfows and integrates with all major applications, databases, and developmentrameworks.

CA Workload Automation is part o CA echnologies broader ISM ramework (see Figure 10), tyingtogether inrastructure components servers, networks, storage, applications, and private and publiccloud resources through network, server, and client automation, and conguration management. CAWorkload Automation, CA Process Automation, and the AppLogic Cloud Platorm are built upon thisinrastructure layer, providing the automation and orchestration capabilities required or applicationand service delivery. Operations Insight delivers dashboards with business relevant I metrics, whileCapacity Management and Analytics oers SLA-driven capacity management or the entire ramework.

Figure 10: CA Workload Automation Architecture

CA Workload Automation is able to dynamically place workloads across physical, virtual, and cloud- public or private - environments, based on cost and SLA considerations. Additional resources can beallocated to ensure service level compliance. CA oers ve so-called Process Automation Power Packs,

allowing workload customers to mechanize common I process automation tasks Cloud Burst,Liecycle Management, Remediation, Sel Service, and Health Check without adding CA ProcessAutomation to their inrastructure. CA Workload Automation integrates with CA Capacity Managerand CA Virtual Placement Manager to orecast uture hardware, network, and storage requirementsor processing workloads compliant with corporate SLAs. For advanced service level monitoring, CAWorkload Automation works with erma Sotware Labs JAWS (JAWS) see company prole on page14 and or mobile emergency management, integration with the xMatters relevance engine is provided.


16/18


14



FunctionalityCA Workload Automation eatures a robust set o job triggers and alerting eatures, as well as strong

auto-remediation capabilities. Designing complex job streams is relatively simple, despite the slightlydated user interace.

CA oers a strong security model that allows handing over control to end users, based on transparentpolicy and governance processes. Providing secure access to business stakeholders, based on consistentpolicies, can be regarded as a key strength o the CA product.

A major reason or CA Workload Automation to be one o the winners o the 2012 Workload AutomationRadar Report lies in its integration with erma JAWS. In combination with JAWS, the CA productis not only robust, versatile, scalable, and well perorming, but convincingly ties together workloadswith their corresponding business requirements. Providing health and perormance inormation notonly to the data center, but also to aected line o business stakeholders, can be considered as the nalrontier o workload automation.

Deployment & AdministrationCA oers the widest range o legacy sotware conversion utilities o any vendor, acilitating workloadconversion rom BMC, IBM, ASG, ORSYP, Redwood, Cisco/idal, Stonebranch, and UC4. Similar toits main competitors and due to the comprehensive but ragmented character o the CA solution, thesotware installation and conguration requires a signicant implementation eort. CA echnologieshas announced improved implementation times with the upcoming r11.4 release.

Te Workload Control Center ensures a consistent and coherent user experience across the mainrameand distributed versions o CA Workload Automation. Unlike Cisco idal and Stonebranch, CA hasat least partially integrated the JAWS workload perormance dashboard, instead o relying on a purelyexternal user interace.

Cost AdvantageTe licensing cost and implementation timerame or CA Workload Automation are in line with itsmain competitors IBM, BMC, and ASG. CAs licensing model is granular and transparent, exclusivelybased on the number o clients or on the volume o MIPS in case o a mainrame deployment. Per taskpricing would be desirable or increased fexibility.

Combining CA Workload Automation with the JAWS sotware can signicantly decreaseadministration cost, due to considerably improved critical path visibility and transparent mapping ojobs to SLA-relevant business goals. JAWS also sends out prioritized alerts, based on SLA goals or moretargeted issue resolution.

Vendor StrengthWith over 2,500 customers, CA Workload Automation is one o the most popular enterprise workloadautomation solutions. CA echnologies achieved revenue o $4.4 billion and $827 million o prot in2011. CAs vision o integrating workload automation with process automation and service managementshows that the company has clearly understood the trend toward an agile I-as-a-Service model. Apreview o CA Process Automation 4.0 has provided EMA with a glimpse o what there is to come romCAs end regarding ully integrated and orchestrated business process automation.


17/18


15



Strengths & Limitations

Strengths

Vast customer-base: CAs long history in the enterprise scheduling marketplace has translatedinto a considerable number o very large customer accounts. Global banks, aerospace & deenseorganizations, and major retailers are only a ew examples o CAs impressive customer base andevidence o the high level o trust placed in CAs security model and architecture.

Scalability & perormance: When talking to CA Workload Automation customers, scalabilityand perormance are oten named as some o the key reasons or relying on the CA product. Tecredibility drawn rom its reputation or scalability and reliability is an important asset to CA whenit comes to competing or new accounts.

Pre-confgured process automation power packs: CAs process automation PowerPacks constitutea strong value proposition, by connecting workload automation with critical process automationelements, such as cloud bursting, liecycle management, problem remediation, sel-service, and

health checks.

Excellent security model: Te CA Embedded Entitlements Manager supports Active Directoryand LDAP or easy administration and allows the denition o ne-grained security roles. Tisenables the customer to create and assign precisely scoped user roles or optimal division o dutiesand to satisy audit requirements.

Service Oriented Architecture: As described in the Architecture & Integration section, CAWorkload Automation was designed with a service oriented approach. Tis ensures the optimalintegration o workloads with enterprise applications.

Limitations

User interace in a need o an update: In recent product releases, such as version 4 o CA Process

Automation, CA has impressively demonstrated its ability to create modern and easy-to-usegraphical interaces. Along these lines, CA echnologies has announced a signicant overhaul othe dated interace o CA Workload Automation with the upcoming version r11.4.

Perceived lack o innovation: CA Workload Automation customers sometimes talk about a lacko innovation, when asked or concerns regarding their workload solution. EMA has ound thatthis perceived lack o innovation is oten not well ounded in reality, as CA Workload Automationoers one o the strongest eature sets in the market place.


18/18

About Enterprise Management Associates, Inc.

Founded in 1996, Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) is a leading industry analyst irm that provides deep insight across the ullspectrum o I and data management technologies. EMA analysts leverage a unique combination o practical experience, insight intoindustry best practices, and in-depth knowledge o current and planned vendor solutions to help its clients achieve their goals. Learnmore about EMA research, analysis, and consulting services or enterprise line o business users, I proessionals and I vendors at

www.enterprisemanagement.com or blogs.enterprisemanagement.com. You can also ollow EMA on witter or Facebook.

Tis report in whole or in part may not be duplicated, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or retransmitted without prior written permission oEnterprise Management Associates, Inc. All opinions and estimates herein constitute our judgement as o this date and are subject to change without notice.Product names mentioned herein may be trademarks and/or registered trademarks o their respective companies. EMA and Enterprise Management

Associates are trademarks o Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. in the United States and other countries.

2012 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. EMA, ENERPRISE MANAGEMEN ASSOCIAES, and the mobius symbolare registered trademarks or common-law trademarks o Enterprise Management Associates, Inc.

Corporate Headquarters:5777 Central Avenue, Suite 105Boulder, CO 80301Phone: +1 303.543.9500Fax: +1 303.543.7687www enterprisemanagement com 2480 CA 062712
http://www.enterprisemanagement.com/http://blogs.enterprisemanagement.com/http://twitter.com/ema_researchhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Enterprise-Management-Associates-EMA/232626436757941http://www.enterprisemanagement.com/http://www.enterprisemanagement.com/http://www.facebook.com/pages/Enterprise-Management-Associates-EMA/232626436757941http://twitter.com/ema_researchhttp://blogs.enterprisemanagement.com/http://www.enterprisemanagement.com/

Ema Wla q2 2012 Radarreport CA

Documents

Transcript of Ema Wla q2 2012 Radarreport CA