All network management products miss the point. Their primary focus is on monitoring uptime. This is often referred to as a RAG tool. Red, Amber, Green where Red signifies down,Amber signifies intermittent connectivity problems and Green signifies good connectivity. This serves no business purpose and cannot justify any return on investment. All the development is in looking at when the situation is acceptable but none when you are in dire straits. How is this monitoring? All it does is give you a comfortable feeling. With this approach there is no difference in the value proposition of 'ping' or a network management framework product worth a million bucks.Read the article on LinkedIn here.
There I was shooting the breeze with an old mate. The conversation turned to why Madge Networks which I wrote about here went titsup. My analysis is that Madge Networks had a solution and decided to go out and find a problem. They deferred to more incorrect strategic technology choices. The truth of the matter is that when something goes titsup, its not because of one reason only, but a myriad of them all contributing to the negative consequence. There are the immediate or visual ones, which are underpinned by intermediate ones and finally after digging right down, there are the root causes. There is never a singular root cause for anything but I'll present my opinion and encourage everyone else to chip in. All of them together are more likely the reason the company went titsup. As far as technology brainfarts go there is no better example than Kodak . They invented the digital camera that killed them. However, they were so focused on milking people in their leg