Free Tool · ITOM

Event Management Readiness Check

Eleven checks on the preconditions correlation depends on. Most organisations should fix two cheaper things first — this tells you whether you are one of them.

Event Management fails far more often on its dependencies than on the product. Correlation turns an event into an alert and an alert into an impact statement, and every word of that rests on infrastructure that has to exist first. This check tests those preconditions in the order they have to be met.

Nothing you enter leaves your browser. There is no form submission, no analytics on your answers, and no email required to see the result. These questions are about the state of your platform, so that matters.

Upstream monitoring

Correlating badly-tuned alerts produces slightly less noise, at considerable expense. This is frequently the entire problem.

  1. Monitoring thresholds have been reviewed since the tools were installed.

  2. Alerts for things that no longer matter have been pruned in the last year.

  3. You can state roughly what proportion of current alerts are actionable.

Discovery coverage

If critical alerts come from a segment discovery cannot reach, binding fails exactly where it matters most.

  1. Discovery reaches the part of the estate that generates your critical alerts.

  2. You have tested that events from those systems carry information that can resolve to a CI.

CI identity

Below roughly ninety percent binding, correlation is statistically unhelpful — and unbound events are disproportionately the newer, more fragile parts of the estate.

  1. The CMDB is trusted by operators for identity in that part of the estate.

  2. Relationships between CIs are maintained rather than built once during implementation.

  3. Nobody in the operations team maintains a private spreadsheet that is more accurate.

Service maps and ownership

Six services mapped accurately are worth more than sixty mapped optimistically, because six produce impact statements people believe.

  1. Service maps exist for the services you would page someone about at night.

  2. Those maps have been validated against reality in the last six months.

  3. Someone owns alert and correlation rule tuning, with time allocated, indefinitely.

0 of 11 answered

If the score was uncomfortable

We will tell you which findings are worth money.

Send us the result. We will say which gaps we would fix first, which we would leave alone, and whether you need outside help at all — including when you do not.

contact@tessivant.com