Of course, on a day-to-day basis, these point-management tools are the ones that actually work and let IT experts do their jobs. However, with all the people inside IT using different tools, and different performance metrics to measure success, the likelihood of rolling it all up into a responsive organization that can measure performance based on business metrics is about equal to the proverbial snowball's chance in hell. The track records of broad-perspective management tools have been notoriously bad.
Note to vendors: If you really want to deliver on utility computing, create some truly useful broad-based management tools.
There are essentially three approaches to this problem, and the three large players we spoke to for this article epitomize them.
The first line of thought is that things really have changed. System software, servers, storage and networking, along with management software, have matured to the point that a holistic, high-level management approach is possible. This is the view taken by HP, the company that brought us such concepts as pay-as-you-grow purchasing for server hardware and spiffy new data center management tools like WSMF (Web Services Management Framework) and VSE (Virtual Server Environment).
Unfortunately, HP talks a better game than it plays. Its OpenView management platform has been around forever and is too large, too costly and too ineffective. To HP's credit, it knows this (even if it doesn't acknowledge it) and is working hard to create better management tools.
The second approach agrees that things have indeed changed, but given that legacy systems and multivendor environments abound, a reorganization of the way IT works, along with new hardware and software, is needed. This "it takes a village" outlook is espoused by IBM, which touts extensive services offerings (under the IBM Global Services group) along with enhancements to its hardware and Tivoli management software. Tagline: a solution that goes beyond reshaping IT to reshaping corporate strategy.