Observability — Is it IT voyeurism?

The latest IT linguistics conundrum is "observability."
Written by Forrester Research, Contributor

As I worked to develop guidance around AIOps, I soon found that other commonly used terms were equally confusing to people in our industry. The latest IT linguistics conundrum is "observability." 

While developing my AIOps reference architecture I sought input from my colleagues on "What is observability?" Of course, those talks were very insightful. Let's take a quick look at the topic:


Let's get a few definitions out of the way first. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

  • Observability: capable of being observed 

  • Observer: a representative sent to observe but not participate officially in an activity 

  • Monitor: to watch, keep track of, or check, usually for a special purpose 

  • Observed: to make a scientific observation on or of 

To me, these all sound very similar. One is the action — of the observer — to observe or monitor and the other — the target — is what is being observed or monitored. If we take this out just a bit further, with an engineering or object-oriented programing (OOP) slant — to an IT perspective — it's about understanding what's going on with that entity — the target. It is also about the entity's willingness to share details about what it's doing and feeling, which may not be publicly available. The terms for this behavior in object-oriented analysis and design (OOA&D) are encapsulation and abstraction

Are Observability And Monitoring Any Different From Each Other? 

Let's revisit the definitions and string it all together. Observability is when an object makes itself available to be watched in a manner that it deems suitable and appropriate. It provides as little or as much information as it wants and in only the manner with which it is comfortable. 

IT objects that are "monitored" have had their exposure already defined. There are attributes and characteristics about their state that the observer is allowed to learn. That sounds a lot like being observed, no? The object shares with external entities, that know how to speak its language, information about itself when it is asked to share it. While there are nuanced differences between them, this is essentially, once again, the story of an "observer" and the "observed." 

What's The Jubilation? 

We believe the intention of observability was to be more active, whereas monitoring is more passive. The lack of clarity between the two, however, has caused some confusion that will only get worse as we move toward a more automation-driven setting. If you passively observe a device, is that the same as passively monitoring it? That can potentially differentiate the two, but it needs to be clarified so that we are all on the same page. 

Words Should Not Matter 

The moral of the story here is that the words are far less important than the actions. Nobody can argue that, as infrastructure and operations professionals, we need to have insight into what is going on with the tech stack that delivers services for all business stakeholders. We must know what is available and how to retrieve it so that we can act on it. 

In the end, whether you're observing or monitoring a device, your business success is solely dependent on how well the observer acts on the inputs or signals it receives from the observed entity. Regardless of what you call it, we need to get this goal accomplished. 

This post was written by Principal Analyst Carlos Casanova and it originally appeared here.

Editorial standards