2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
-
Upload
questsoftware -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
1/22
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
2/22
Copyright 2006 NetPro Computing, Inc. All rights reserved.
Contents of this document may be quoted with proper attribution.This white paper is for informational purposes only. NetPro makesno warranties express or implied, in this document.
NetPro Computing, NetPro, and the NetPro logo are eitherregistered trademarks or trademarks of NetPro Computing, Inc. inthe United States and/or other countries.
Microsoft, Active Directory, Windows NT, Windows 2000 andWindows Server 2003 are either registered trademarks ortrademarks of Microsoft Corporation. Other product and companynames mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respectiveowners.
NetPro Computing, Inc. 4747 N 22nd Street, Suite 400 Phoenix,AZ 85016-4774 USA
DEC-WP-0806-2006
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
3/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
Table of Contents
Executive Overview ............................................................................................1Introduction.........................................................................................................3About DEC...........................................................................................................4Survey Demographics ........................................................................................6Highlights and Analysis .....................................................................................8
I. Issues and Priorities ......................................................................................8
II. Current Practices..........................................................................................9III. Technical Environments ............................................................................14IV. Directory Tool Preferences .......................................................................17
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
4/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
NetPro Computing, Inc.
Corporate Office
4747 N. 22nd
Street. Suite 400
Phoenix, Arizona 85016 USA
Telephone: 602-346-3600
FAX : 602-346-3610
Email: [email protected]: http://www.netpro.com
European Office
Telephone: +31 36 540 5959
Monday - Friday 08:00 - 17:00 CET (+1GMT)
Sales
USA and Canada: 800-998-5090
International: +1 602 346 3630
Worldwide Technical Support
Telephone: 602-346-3670
Monday - Friday 06:00 - 18:00 MST (-7GMT)
Email: [email protected]
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
5/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 1
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
Executive Overview
This white paper summarizes the findings of a survey taken at the NetPro 2006 Directory
Experts Conference, which was held March 26 through 29 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The
goal of this survey is to gain a better understanding of the issues facing attendee
organizations, the relative priority of those issues, current tool usage and common
practices for directory and other network infrastructure management tasks. We
conducted a similar survey at the 2005 Directory Experts Conference in Vancouver and
found the results were widely appreciated by the directory community. In addition to the
2006 responses and analysis, this years report will also examine how trends have
evolved since the 2005 survey. We plan to continue conducting these surveys at future
DEC conferences and welcome your comments and suggestions for future questions and
areas for analysis.
High points from the survey:
Demographics
2006 DEC attracted 530 delegates from 240 companies throughout 25 countries
235 attendees representing a good cross section of organizations responded to thissurvey
Survey respondents are primarily technicians, work within large corporate andgovernmental IT organizations, are responsible for Active Directory management and
support large numbers of directory users.
Findings
Compliance and Security remain the fastest rising directory management priorities forthe second year in a row
Auditing AD changes is the most important day-to-day requirement
35% of responding organizations have a user provisioning solution in place, another37% are in progress or plan to implement a solution within 24 months
44% of responding organizations rely on paper-based processes to handle directorychange management and 15% make changes without any specific approval process
Most organizations (55%) consider themselves world class or better than averagein their directory management performance
87% of responding organizations are using or are planning to use Service LevelAgreements
AD Support and Network Availability are the two most common SLA attributes
Responding organizations have strong interest in ITIL; 55% of respondents arecurrently using ITIL and another 24% are considering its use
Change management is the most commonly implemented ITIL practice
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
6/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 2
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
MIIS deployment among DEC attendees has grown from 31% in 2005 to 43% in 2006
Quality of products is the most important factor for selecting infrastructuremanagement tools
58% of responding organizations do not have a preferred AD tool vendor. NetPro is
the 1st place choice among companies with a preference
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
7/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 3
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
Attendee Survey Results
IntroductionThe purpose of this paper is to share information gathered through a survey of attendees
at NetPros ninth Directory Experts Conference (DEC) held March 26 through 29 in Las
Vegas Nevada. The 2006 conference attracted 530 delegates representing 240
companies and arriving from 25 countries. A record 235 participants, representing a
good cross section of attendee demographics, completed the survey over the course of
the conferences four days.
The intent of this survey was to gather information that would have value when shared
with attendees, analysts, trade press and members of the directory community.
Collecting actual data and experiences from conference attendees provides a wealth of
information on the issues facing the directory community, the relative priority of those
issues, current tool usage and common practices for directory and other network
infrastructure management tasks. As primary research, survey data is critical for
supporting or disputing anecdotal information from other sources.
The 2006 survey builds on the results of a similar survey conducted at the 2005 Directory
Experts Conference in Vancouver and gives us the opportunity to examine trends and
changes between the two years.
We plan to continue conducting these surveys at future DEC conferences and welcome
your comments and suggestions for future questions and areas for analysis.
This document summarizes the information captured through the survey along with data
analysis, trends and our insights on the implications of the findings. We believe it
provides solid data for comparisons with peer organizations and many ideas for
organizations to consider as they evaluate their directory management efforts and look
for high value opportunities for improvement and investment. We hope you find the
results as fascinating as we did!
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
8/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 4
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
About DEC
General Information
Since its inception in 2002, DEC has been dedicated to advancing the skills of the most
experienced Active Directory users. The theme for 2006, Achieving Secure EnterpriseIdentity Management and Access Control with Microsoft IAM Technologies, served as the
centerpiece for the conference, which featured a wide variety of sessions led by the top
experts on Microsoft Active Directory and MIIS. DEC included in-depth technical
presentations, roundtables and facilitated panel discussions designed to encourage
extensive delegate participation and networking. The conference also incorporated a new
pre-conference workshop The Masters of Disaster led by HPs Guido Grillenmeier and
NetPros Gil Kirkpatrick, which built upon real-life experiences from the field to provide
hands-on instruction for handling different Disaster Recovery scenarios, such as deleted
users, malicious attack, and fatal group policy configuration.
2006 HighlightsDEC 2006, the ninth event of its kind, continues to surge in popularity, exceeding last
years record attendance by 200 attendees and growing the number of companies
represented from 147 to 240. Participants enjoyed presentations, interactive discussions
and thought provoking commentary by a renowned group of Active Directory authorities
including top-rated strategists and speakers from Microsoft.
Stuart Kwan, Microsofts Director of Program Management, Directory Services,kicked off the event by providing a preview of Microsofts Identity and Access
Management Strategy and Roadmap.
John Enck, Research Vice President, Gartner spoke on the technical and marketdirections of identity management and challenged the goal (and reality) of reaching
a single directory given heterogeneous technology environments.
Wook Lee, Directory Service Architect, Hewlett Packard delivered a humorous andinformative session that somehow managed to equate active directory support roles
with the line positions in a restaurant kitchen.
Guido Grillenmeier, a Senior Microsoft Services Consultant with Hewlett-PackardConsulting, presented an AD Masters session on how to hide confidential data
within Active Directory, covering both normal AD permissions and two more
advanced options.
Nick Nikols, Senior Analyst, Burton Group provided an analysts view of MIIS in histalk MIIS: Where is it Going and What to Expect? He described the roles MIIS
covers, how it compares with its competition and explained its fit into Burtons
processes.
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
9/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 5
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
A whole new set of Active Directory experts were on the scene this year too. They
included Paul Sims and Jason Heyes (Microsoft) on Active Directory Disaster Recovery,
Mark Lawrence (Microsoft) on Microsofts Insight into Group Policy, Jeff Bohren (BMC)
on the Role of MIIS in Compliance and Danny Kim (FullArmor Corp) on the Details of
GPO in Vista among others.
Other DEC 2006 highlights included:
A spirited MVP panel discussion, hosted by Microsofts Peter Houston, whichfeatured well-known industry experts such as Dean Wells, Joe Richards, Stuart
Kwan, Guido Grillenmeier and NetPros Gil Kirkpatrick sharing their insights and
opinions on AD, MIIS and future directions for identity management.
"IAM All Night: Gambling with Identity," the interactive sequel to the popular AD AllNight hacker/administrator shoot out from DEC2005 in Vancouver. IAM All Night
featured a clueless company (Misanthropic, Inc.), a less than perfect environment
and a laundry list of identity management needs. Participants gambled,
synchronized and provisioned into the wee hours of the night.
A visit by the ever popular Microsoft Technology Truck
As the directory community matures past the early adopter stage, DEC has grown to
addresses its technical education needs. In 2005, DEC expanded to include a track on
MIIS and in 2006, DEC added new Masters tracks for both AD and MIIS in parallel with
its standard tracks. Living up to the conferences expert billing, these tracks provided
bleeding edge content for the most experienced, technically advanced delegates. Based
on attendee feedback, the new format was a big success, and we hope to continue these
tracks and add new ones where warranted at future DECs.
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
10/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 6
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
Survey Demographics
Understanding the demographic make-up of the survey participants is vital for placing the
survey results in a proper context. In 2006, 235 attendees completed this survey, a
significantly larger sample than in 2005. These participants represented approximately
44% percent of the overall pool of conference attendees. Given the size and breadth ofparticipation, we are confident that the survey results constitute a representative sample
of attending roles and organizations.
The respondents of this survey:
Are primarily technicians
o 75% are self-described hands on practitioners (consultants, administrators,
system engineers, or other technicians)
o Systems Engineers are the most popular category for the second year in a
row, accounting for slightly over 40% of attendees
o Architects were the most popular write-in responsibility, accounting for 4% of
overall respondents
o IT Managers, Directors and VPs almost doubled in number from 2005, but as
a percentage of the overall pool of respondents dropped slightly from 14% in
2005 to 11.5% in 2006
Work within a large IT organization
o 63% are members of either a corporate (52%) or government (11%) IT
organization
o Other categories included consultants (14%), Service Providers (5%)
Software Providers (10%) and other/blank (7%)
o Of respondents designating the size of their IT organization (159 out of 235)
90% are from IT organizations with over 100 employees A remarkable 70% work for very large IT organizations with over
1000 employees
Are responsible for Active Directory
Survey respondents could specify multiple areas of responsibility. Of those listing at
least one area of responsibility, Active Directory is the clear leader, followed by DNS
and security. As the trend from 2005 shows, MIIS continues to increase in
popularity.
2006 2005
Active Directory 90% 96%DNS 54% 59%
Exchange 19% 29%
MIIS 39% 24%
Audit/Compliance 33% 31%
Security 45% 54%
Entire Network 13% 14%
Other 14% 9% Table 1: Job Responsibilities
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
11/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 7
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
Delving more deeply into survey respondents job responsibilities, the survey discovered:
Survey respondents working for corporate or governmental organizations:
o Have multiple responsibilities 60% are responsible for at least three of these areas
19% are responsible for 5 or more Only 17% were responsible for 1 of the 8 categories listed in Job
responsibilities table
o Respondents supporting AD also supported 60% - DNS 48% - Security 36% - MIIS 36% - Audit/Compliance 20% - Exchange 14% - Entire network 11% - Other
o Support large numbers of directory users
Number of Users Supported
Over 20,000 users 55%
5,000 to 20,000 users 30%
1,000 to 5,000 users 8%
500 to 1,000 users 2%
100 to 500 users 3%Less than 100 users 3%
In a sign of an improving economy, more consultants are showing up at DEC
The percentage of respondents who work for consulting companies nearly doubled
rising from 8% in 2005 to 14% in 2006. However, the number of attendees listing
consultant as their primary job responsibility rose more modestly from 18% to
21%. Slightly over 1/3 of the consultant respondents are internal consultants
rather than employees of a consulting company.
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
12/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 8
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
Highlights and Analysis
I. Issues and Priorities
Compliance and Security continue to gain in priorityFor a second year in a row, compliance and security rank the highest when determining
which areas are gaining in priority over the previous year. In 2006, compliance and
auditing gained first place in the list, followed by improving Windows security, and
improving directory security taking third place. Perennial issues such as improving
service quality, reducing user support costs and improving productivity are also gaining in
priority in many organizations, but not at the same pace as compliance and security
issues.
Controlling and auditing changes for corporate compliance - 73% ofrespondents rate it as having a higher priority than last year and only 2% rate it as
lower priority
Improving Windows security - 67% of respondents rate it as having a higherpriority than last year and only 1% rate it as lower priority
Improving directory security - 63% of respondents rate it as having a higherpriority than last year and only 1% rate it as lower priority
Strengthening disaster recovery capabilities is a new area in the 2006 survey.53% of respondents rated it as having a higher (38%) or a much higher priority
(15%) than last year and only 1% say the priority is lower.
Increasing speed in resolving production issues has the lowest ratings with only42% of respondents rating it as having a higher priority than last year and 3% rating
it as lower priority. Still, these ratings reflect a slight rise in emphasis from 2005,
indicating that directory environments may not be as stable as they should be.
4% of the respondents say simplifying sign-on is not a priority in theirorganizations, but more surprisingly, improving directory team productivity and
reducing per user support costs also had 4% of respondents saying they were
not an organizational priority.
Respondents face many unique issues when trying to achievesecurity and compliance objectives
Survey participants were asked open-ended questions on specific security and
compliance concerns. Many responses were received, but the gamut of issues and
challenges fell into four common areas.
External concerns (outside of the control of the respondents company) Example:the number of different agencies and regulations involved in achieving compliance
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
13/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 9
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
Operational concerns Examples: how to incorporate AD into existing changemanagement processes and setting up the human workflow for user rights
approvals/denials (provisioning)
Organizational politics Example: getting management to limit the number ofpeople in remote locations with the authority to make changes in access rights
Technical Example: security audit log collection and alerting
On a day-to-day basis, Auditing AD changes has supplantedMonitoring AD Health as the most important AD requirement
When asked to specify their 3 most important requirements for AD, respondents ranked
Auditing AD changes as the most important requirement, elevating it from second place
in 2005. Disaster Recovery also moved upward in 2006. These changes highlight the
increasing importance of AD in supporting sensitive operations, necessitating careful
control of changes and fast recovery in case of disaster.
2006
Rank
2005
Rank Top AD Support Requirements
Relative
Weight
1 2 Auditing AD changes 54
2 1 Monitoring AD health 47
3 4 AD disaster recovery 36
4 * Automated provisioning 33
5 6 Implementing AD change management processes and tools 32
6 3 Delegation of AD rights 28
7 * Access Control 24
8 5 GPO change management 21
9 7 Implementing AD troubleshooting tools 10
* Not included in the 2005 Survey II. Current Practices
Most organizations consider themselves better than average whenrating their overall directory management performance
Its called the Directory Experts Conference for a reason; 55% of attendees consider their
organizations as above average in directory management. The percentage of attendees
rating their organizations adequate or above rose from 61% in 2005 to 81% in 2006.
55% consider themselves either world class (18%) or better than average (37%) 27% rate their performance as adequate 16% consider themselves as less effective than we wish 2% consider themselves novices
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
14/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 10
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
AD team members cover many functions
Are AD support teams overworked? Some certainly think so! Almost all corporate and
governmental survey participants support many critical functions. The table below shows
the percentage of respondents supporting each of eight critical directory team functions.
Critical Directory Team Functions % Supporting
Directory administration 100%
Directory troubleshooting 96%
Supporting AD users 96%
Enforcing security policies 95%
Planning and "get ahead" efforts 95%
Supporting corporate auditing/compliance efforts 91%
Creating and generating reports 89%
Monitoring/Tuning performance 89% Almost three quarters of the respondents supported all 8 listed functions, and all
respondents covered at least 4 of the 8.
Number of Functions Supported % Supporting Cumulative %
All 8 Functions 73% 73%
7 out of 8 Functions 13% 86%
6 out of 8 Functions 7% 93%
5 out of 8 Functions 7% 99%
4 out of 8 Functions 1% 100% For many respondents, supporting these AD functions is only part oftheir responsibilities
As encompassing as they seem, these functions are only part of the responsibilities ofmany respondents. They may also support Exchange (19% of respondents), MIIS (39%)
or other Microsoft infrastructure software; have responsibility for additional functions such
as audit/compliance (33%) and security (45%); or even support the entire network (13%).
Thus, almost 25% of respondents devote less than a quarter of their time to the eight
surveyed functions. Conversely, 21% must be severely overworked as they devote over
100% of their time!
Total Effort Devoted to Listed Functions % Respondents
Over 100% 21%
75% to 100% 17%
50% to 75% 17%
25% to 50% 21%Less than 25% 24%
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
15/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 11
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
87% of responding organizations are using or are planning to useService Level Agreements
Service Level Agreements (SLAs) are standard practice in most survey respondents
organizations, with usage gaining slightly over 2005. How and between whom SLAs are
implemented varies considerably between organizations.
SLA usage among respondentso 75% are currently using SLAs (73% in 2005)o 5% plan to implement SLAs within 6 months (4% in 2005)o 7% plan to implement SLAs in the future (5% in 2005)o 13% have no plans to use SLAs (18% in 2005)
Most SLAs are between IT and internal end users. Of organizations reportingthat they use SLAs:
o 69% have SLAs between IT and end userso 40% are between IT and an external network service providero
59% are between two areas within IT Slightly more than half the organizations using SLAs cover 2 or more of the
categories listed above.
o 43% have SLAs in only one category (30% are between IT and end users)o 30% have SLAs for 2 categorieso 22% have SLAs for all 3 categories
AD Support and Network Availability are the most common SLAattributes
SLA attributes vary widely from organization to organization. No attribute was common
across all organizations, but on average, organizations used 4 of the 7 attributes listed
below. The figures below cover organizations currently using SLAs.
SLA Attributes 2006 2005
AD support 65% 73%
End-to-end response time for AD 45% 58%
AD uptime 60% 70%
Exchange support 51% 51%
End-to-end response time for Exchange 29% 41%
Exchange uptime 46% 46%
Network availability 63% 72% Surprisingly, relatively few organizations back SLA performance with
penalties or incentivesOnly 32% of responding organizations (up from 30% in 2005) have penalties or
incentives. Lack of incentives for internal employees may indicate a lack of confidence in
the metrics being collected and/or ITs ability to influence those metrics. For SLAs with
external organizations, this low percentage indicates that IT organizations are using SLAs
for measurement purposes rather than for pay-for-performance.
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
16/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 12
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
Responding organizations have strong interest in ITIL
Interest in ITIL continues to grow. Awareness is at an all time high and most
organizations are at least considering it.
A total of 55% of respondents are currently using ITILo
22% of respondents are strong believers in ITIL and have implementedthroughout our organization
o 33% of respondents use ITIL where appropriate
Of the remaining respondentso 24% are considering ITIL, but have not formally implemented any of its
practices
o 12% are not considering ITIL at this time, but may in the future
Only 9% of responding organizations had no interest in ITIL
Change Management is the most implemented ITIL practice
ITIL practices are not uniformly implemented in client organizations. Change
Management is the most popular practice among confirmed ITIL users (strong believers
and where appropriate) with Service Management following closely behind.
ITIL Practice by Usage
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Release
Management
Security & Policy
Management
Configuration &
Auditing
Service
Management
Change
Management Over half of the respondents rely on informal and manual approachesfor managing AD changes
Despite the pressures applied by security and compliance concerns, a surprising number
of respondents still make changes without a formal approval process, and paper remains
the most common method for tracking changes.
15% - Informal -- Make changes as needed without a specific approval process 44% - Formal, manual -- Use a formal configuration control board (or equivalent
group) and changes are assigned and tracked by paper.
41% - Formal, automated -- Have a formal change management system withdefined workflows and a review/approval process.
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
17/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 13
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
Homegrown tools led in AD change management automation
When asked in an open-ended question which tools they used for AD change
management automation, respondents named numerous tools. Only a few tools received
mentions from more than one respondent. The following three options received the
highest multiple responses.
19% -- Homegrown tools 18% -- Remedy (BMC) 11% -- Peregrine (HP)
User provisioning has strong interest within the AD community
A strong majority of respondents have implemented, or plan to implement user
provisioning over the next 24 months.
35% -- have a user provisioning solution deployed today 18% -- have a deployment in progress
14% -- plan to deploy within 12 months
6% -- plan to deploy within 24 months 28% -- have no plans for user provisioning
Management of user accounts is the most popular driver for selectinga provisioning solution
Respondents were asked to rank the top challenges they were trying to solve with their
user provisioning solution.
Management of user accounts (provisioning and deprovisioning... 44%
Auditing and reporting on identity and access 34%
Synchronization of identity information across your environm... 34%
Password management (password self service, password synchro... 29%Management of roles 24%
Management of groups 23%
Providing additional self-service capabilities to end users 19%
Replacing a home-grown application a with supported product 7%
White pages 6%
Other 1% Microsoft has the largest share of the currently installed provisioningsolutions
43% -- Microsoft Identity Integration Server 26% -- Home-grown application 8% -- IBM Tivoli Identity Manager 6% -- Sun Java Identity Manager 5% -- Novell Identity Manager
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
18/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 14
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
III. Technical Environments
Exchange is already deployed in most surveyed organizations
Already mainstream, Exchange is nearing market saturation. Most (72%) attendee
organizations have fully deployed Exchange and another 2% have a deployment inprogress. Only four respondents (
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
19/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 15
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
Sharepoint has already made significant inroads in the enterprisemarket
Sharepoint, Microsofts intranet web portal and collaboration software is installed in over
half of the respondents organizations and is on track to reach Exchange-like levels of
usage over the next couple of years. Just over one quarter (26%) of the respondingorganizations have no plans to use Sharepoint. When asked an open-ended question on
how their organizations used Sharepoint, respondents most common uses included:
Document management, collaboration, knowledge management, internal portals, and file
sharing.
Does your organization use Sharepoint?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
No Still
considering
Yes, within 12
months
Yes, within 6
months
Yes, within 3
months
Yes, already
using Most DEC attendees are eagerly awaiting Longhorn
Running well ahead of the classic adoption curve, 61% of survey respondents plan toinstall Microsofts next generation operation system (code named Longhorn) within twelve
months of its release. But a sizeable 27% are sitting on the sidelines and have yet to
formulate implementation plans.
When is your organization planning to implement Longhorn?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
No plans yet More than 12 months
after general release
Within 12 months of
general release
As soon as it is
generally available
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
20/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 16
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
Federated Identity Management is still bleeding edge in the DECcommunity
Federated identity management, an arrangement that allows multiple enterprises to share
the same identity information is just starting to take hold among leading edge DEC
attendees. Less than half of the survey respondents are even considering Federation at
this stage and only 10% have implemented it their organization. By next year, NetPro
expects to see a modest uptick in deployment as approximately 11% of this years
respondents plan to implement it within the next 12 months.
Does your organization use Federated Services?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
No Still
considering
Yes, within 12
months
Yes, within 6
months
Yes, within 3
months
Yes, already
using Maintaining security during migration is the biggest challenge facingcompanies during technical migrations
Operational issues such as maintaining security (1st place), balancing between day-to-
day support and migration efforts (2nd place) and preventing service level degradation
(3rd place) topped the list of technology migration headaches. Security concerns easily
topped the list, but clearly the need to keep production environments safe and fully
operational caused more concern than the tactical details of performing the migration.
The top tactical issue is controlling/documenting changes, which on a relative ranking fell
closely behind the top 3 concerns. In a sign on the state of the current IT job market,
finding/developing skilled technical resources came in at a distant 5th place in relative
rankings.
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
21/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 17
Copyright 2006 NetPro, Inc.
IV. Directory Tool Preferences
99% of respondents use tools to manage Active Directory
Respondents were asked an open-ended question allowing them to list as many (or as
few) software tools as they use for directory management. Virtually all respondents usesome form of tools to manage their AD environment. However, the breadth of
automation and depth of functional coverage varies significantly. Some respondents rely
solely on homegrown tools (mostly scripts), native (Microsoft provided) AD tools or large
operational frameworks such as MOM or HP Openeview, while others have amassed
quite a collection of point best of breed products.
The table below was compiled by tallying the vendors mentioned in each respondents list
of tools. The table only includes the top six vendors. Many other tools, including Hyena,
Tivoli, and SunONE, were mentioned but fell below 1% of the total.
Rank Vendor Mentions
1 Microsoft (all) 39%2 NetPro 24%
3 NetIQ 15%
4 Homegrown 11%
5 Quest 6%
6 HP Openview 2% Quality ranks first when selecting tools
For the second year in a row, quality (stable, bug free) ranks far and away in first place
as the most critical attribute when selecting software products for managing directory
infrastructure. 2006 DEC survey respondents ranked tool selection criteria very similarly
to their 2005 counterparts in both position and relative weight. The only significant
difference is the reversal of breadth of product capabilities (which rose from 11th
to 7th
place in 2006) and dedication to exceeding your expectations in product quality and
support (which dropped from 7th
to 11th). This drop is surprising given the emphasis on
product quality as the most important attribute. Interestingly, operational factors
dominate the top six slots for both years, while the functional characteristics which define
what the tool does, such as breadth of product capabilities, best of breed capabilities,
use and support of best practices and depth of coverage, fall into the middle of the
pack for requirements.
-
8/14/2019 2006 Experts Conference Survey White Paper
22/22
2006 DEC Attendee Survey Results Page: 18
2006
Rank
2005
Rank Factor
Relative
Weight
1 1 Quality of products (stable, bug free) 65
2 2 Total cost of ownership 34
3 3 Scalability 29
4 4 Ability to integrate with other tools 28
5 5 Quality of customer support 22
6 6 Ease of use 207 11 Breadth of product capabilities 20
8 8 Best of breed capabilities 15
9 10 Use and support of best practices 14
10 9 Depth of coverage 13
11 7 Dedication to exceeding your expectations in product quality... 7
12 12 Meets commitments to you 7
13 14 Community support (forums, eBooks, web site resources) 314 13 Other 2
ROI is an important factor for most tool buyers
Although many respondents often purchase tools for tactical reasons, they still expect a
return from their investments. ROI remains important to buyers, even gaining somewhat
in importance since the 2005 survey.
ROI is a critical requirement for 27% of tool buyers and an important factor to anadditional 44%
28% rate ROI as one of many factors But only 4% say ROI is not important (as opposed to 8% in 2005)
Most organizations do not have a preferred AD tool vendor
Preferred vendor status illustrates the strength of the relationship between a vendor and
its customers. It also indicates whether products purchased from a given vendor are
viewed tactically or strategically. The low overall rate of preference highlights the tactical
nature of most tool purchases. In contrast, given its relative market share, NetPros 1st
place finish speaks highly of its products and relationships with its customers.
58% do not have a preferred tool vendor Of respondents expressing a preference:
o NetPro takes 1st
place with 41% of the preferences (up from 18% in 2005)
o Microsoft moved from 4th
place in 2005 to 2nd
place with 36%
o NetIQ took 3rd
at 10%
o Quest dropped from 2nd
place in 2005 to 4th, garnering only 3% of the
preferences in 2006