Reusability and Sustainability in Operations Dashboard

Comparative Study

Noor Nashriq Ramly and Mohd Haris Aziz

InfoStructure Lab, MIMOS Berhad, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Keywords: Paperless, Green It, Paper-like Interface, Sustainability, Operations Dashboard, Monitoring.

Abstract: In managing IT data centers and critical operations, it is imperative for companies to be able to rely on

specific mechanism in order to have visibility of overall infrastructure health. Failure to act proactively

against any disaster that could happen in future would bring major losses to companies that depended

greatly on their IT operation. However, looking at the current trends and technologies, these tools can come

in various forms; from manually collecting data and offline paper reports to some astounding paperless

operations dashboard that everyone in the company would be able to see and rely for any critical operation

decision-making. While focusing only for real-time monitoring activities, there is an urgent need for

companies to embed tactical and strategic function in their operations dashboard. Companies can no longer

relying on manual analyzing critical operation to proactively improve their IT operation business. Thus, this

paper discuss on the four reasons that of companies starting to change to paperless operations dashboard as

well as three principles that we need to adhere in order to implement an effective paperless dashboard

initiatives in a critical operation company. Apart from that, several criteria for choosing the best paperless

operation dashboard for specific company derived from previous research are discussed in detail. A

comparative study is then carried out between five off-the-shelf dashboards and one in-house developed

dashboard against the researched criteria. With this, it is hoped that this paper would be a useful guide to

companies when venturing in paperless operations dashboard arena.

1 INTRODUCTION

The idea of paperless operations dashboard started

when people started to be aware that they need to

take into account time, effort and criticality of

managing IT operation. By relying more on paper

and offline dashboard, people tends to spend more

time in gathering and constructing repetitive data and

report before they could have time to analyze them.

By the time they even finish the analysis; the result

may not be even the latest reflection of current status

and cannot be the accurate baseline for decision in

future. Before it becomes too late, companies are

willing to spend more and more on the gadgets and

widgets to help them minimize time and effort to

overcome potential issues and address them

proactively through dashboard visualization.

The term dashboard refers to the art of displaying

multiple of information in various forms and styles

from different sources into one screen [Wikipedia,

2001], [Matt, 2005] and [Maarten, 2010]. According

to Eckerson (2006), performance dashboard can be

categorized into three types; operational, tactical and

strategic.

Operational dashboards usually focus on real-time

data that comes from actions triggers by opportunity

or issue. The dashboard will have to provide real-

time or instantaneous status or near real-time of any

possible occurrence of downtime. Normally it will

serve as detailed or summarized data pulled directly

from infrastructure. Tactical dashboards on the other

hand are not all real-time data and normally used to

guide user to make decision on certain areas. It is

useful in decision support activities by relying on the

historical data along with business intelligence

feature through trend prediction. The focus is to

analyze performance over time and what is displayed

in the past and how to improve them. The last type of

dashboards; strategic dashboard is used while dealing

with measuring performance against the high-level

objectives. This dashboard is normally associated

with data on company goals or requirements versus

performance data during some specific interval.

For IT operation companies, dashboard is used to

Ramly N. and Aziz M. (2012).

Reusability and Sustainability in Operations DashboardComparative Study.

In Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on e-Health Services and Technologies and the Third International Conference on Green IT

Solutions, pages 89-96

DOI: 10.5220/0004475000890096

 SciTePress

help to project current performance and health of

infrastructure as well to support decision making

against any disaster in future. This mechanism is

crucial to the organization in minimizing disaster

impact on the core business. While there is

increasing needs for IT critical operation to monitor

and measuring performance real-time in line with

tactical and strategic initiatives, companies now are

looking for any other alternative operations

dashboard that could meet all these functions in one

platform. It is believe that while technology

advanced, people will start to look at high technology

equipment and gadgets rather than relying on

traditional paper and offline methods as means of

monitoring, predicting and analyzing (Steurbaut, et

al., 2010). It is predicted to be the inevitable result of

technology evolution to match with emerging risks of

critical IT operation.

However, given varieties of operations dashboard

in the market, people might face problem to choose

the perfectly matched dashboard for their company.

Balancing between needs and cost of the dashboard,

this paper is designed to help the companies to

choose the best paperless operations dashboard while

at the same time utilizing the paperless features for

managing their mission critical operation.

For that reason, a comparative study was

conducted on a few several top operations

dashboards in the market. However, we limit our

discussion on dashboard known as Nagios, Zenoss,

Ganglia, OpManager and Cacti to avoid lengthy a

discussion.

Section 2 in this paper discusses briefly on the

principles that company need to adhere and conform

to ensure a successful paperless dashboard

implementation. In Section 3, we will cover a few

criteria that one should search for a successful

paperless dashboard which will later be used in

section 4 for our comparative studies. The last

section describes briefly our future work based on

this study.

2 WHY PAPERLESS

OPERATIONS DASHBOARD?

There are a few reasons people starts to move to

paperless dashboard rather than working with paper

and offline data. According to Seelan and Harper

(2003), there are three problems rises while dealing

with paper reports.

The first point is paper symbolize an old-

fashioned past technology (Steurbaut, et al., 2010)

and (Eckerson, 2006). People tend to relate masses of

paper on the desk as ‘outdated’ and not representing

futuristic technologies, especially when dealing with

IT critical operation center.

The cost of paper storage and maintenance also

remains the core problem of IT operation business

nowadays (Gormish, Piersol, Gudan, and Barrus,

2009), (Steurbaut, et al., 2010) and (Bassignani,

Dierolf, Roberts and Lee, 2010) Companies are more

willing to spend more on the high technology gadgets

to do all the automated monitoring that can guarantee

IT improvement and saves more time as well as

minimizing human error in the process rather than

traditional paper trails and reports that would require

more time to prepare and generate when needed.

Moreover, cost of paper disposal remains one of the

crucial items that companies need to provide while

dealing with paper reports (Webber and Wallace,

2009). Although the individual cost might be small,

but the aggregate cost of overall process is

reasonable high and can help companies to save

some operation cost.

As paperless dashboard is web-based application,

it is self-maintained and do not require any paper

throughout the process and in that context, it should

be considered environmentally safe (Webber and

Wallace, 2009). However, it is still open for debate

as paperless dashboard requires hardware

infrastructure and capacity planning need to be

arranged so that energy can be use efficiently.

Apart from that, IT personnel tend to realize that

there are limitation and interactional problem dealing

with paper (Steurbaut, et al., 2010), (Eckerson, 2006)

and (Petrakis and Engiles, 2000). This includes

physical space, physical delivery, and versioning

process throughout IT operations reviewing,

analyzing and cross-reference process. By having

paperless operation dashboard, people can use the

dashboard as tool for easy monitoring and predicting

trends of infrastructure health efficiently rather than

manual data collection and data analysis. This will

help to save time and efforts as well as avoiding

frustration among the technical personnel while

dealing with this repetitive task.

3 PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE

PAPERLESS DASHBOARD

IMPLEMENTATION

There are three principles that we need to adhere to

guarantee an effective paperless operations

dashboard implementation.

EHST/ICGREEN 2012

3.1 Role of Paper

The first principle is, before going deep in paperless

area, one need to understand the role of paper reports

that will be replaced or minimized. We need to

determine the functions and characteristics of

documents that we want to replace in the first place

(Gormish, Piersol, Gudan, and Barrus, 2009) and

(Sellan and Harper, 2003). In order to do this, we will

need to recognize the people and process workflow

involved in those specific activities (Bos, Blanken,

Huisman, 2011), ( Noor Nashriq, Ahmad Zuhairi,

Mohd Haris, Nurul Haszeli, 2011), (Plimmer, 2010),

(Zhu, Nii, Fernando, Cheok, 2011) and (Plimmer,

Mason, 2006). This might be derived from the

dashboard angle or perspectives – whether it is meant

solely for operational, tactical, strategic or

combination of all [4]. After we have defined that, we

are now able to determine which area and function

that we want to focus on with these paperless

initiatives.

3.2 Technology Must Support Paperless

Environment

The next point is paperless technology must be

developed to support the same paper environment

(Gormish, Piersol, Gudan, and Barrus, 2009) and

(Sellan and Harper, 2003).Computer system needs to

be able to adapt to existing human system.

Insufficient understanding of IT activities involved

will result to false interpretation that could bring IT

disaster when we want to replicate it into a system

(Bassignani, Dierolf, Roberts and Lee, 2010) and

(Eckerson, 2006), Translating all the processes just

for the sake of transforming a paper process to

paperless would not bring any good but would bring

down the organization motivation in the long run.

The dashboard need be better crafted so that people

would not have the tendency to change to old paper

process in future.

3.3 Paperless Initiatives Must Be

Supported by Top Level

Management Direction

The final point that organization should think about

is whether the paper office initiatives comes from

significant organization change to match computer

system or it is superficial desire to not use paper

(Steurbaut, et al., 2010). When one organization

chooses the latter to start move on the paperless

office initiative, they can be sure that the use of paper

will totally fade out in certain tasks in future.

4 CRITERIA OF WELL-DEFINED

PAPERLESS OPERATION

DASHBOARD

There are many criteria that contribute to good

paperless operational dashboard for particular

environment. Based on studies, the important criteria

are summarized and tabulated in Table 1.

Table 1: Criteria of paperless well- defined operation

dashboard.

Criteria Description

Comprehensive Completeness - cover only what key

business and system needs while

ensuring all performance indicators

included.

Process mapping Ability to adapt and replicate current

paper process to paperless

Automation Ability to automate repetitive

dashboard activity

Real-time &

accurate data

Current, instantaneous and precise

data available to view.

Personalization Distinguish dashboard according to

viewers – operational, tactical,

strategic

Audit capability Ability to store log events for

analysis and comparison purpose.

Alert /

Notification

Action trigger based on specific

rules.

As tabulated in Table 1, these five criteria are the

main contribution towards having a good paperless

operation dashboard.

The first criterion is the dashboard must possess

comprehensive coverage according to purpose of the

dashboard (Petrakis and Engiles, 2000) and (Noor

Nashriq, Ahmad Zuhairi, Mohd Haris, Nurul Haszeli,

2011). The selected performance indicator must be

able to show business performance and real-time

status according what business and system needs

(Bharosa, Meijer, Janssen, and Brave, 2010). A good

information organization and flow can help users to

highlight critical data that we can want to convey

(Marshall, 2009) and (Triola, Feldman, Pearlman and

Kalet, 2004).

The paperless dashboard must be able to map

current paper process to its new paperless system

(Sellan and Harper, 2003), (Bos, Blanken, Huisman,

2011), (Petrakis and Engiles, 2000) and (Zhu, Nii,

Fernando, Cheok, 2011). The technology that the

paperless dashboard has should be able to support

current paper environment in order to make it work

Reusability and Sustainability in Operations Dashboard - Comparative Study

(Gormish, Piersol, Gudan, and Barrus, 2009) and

(Noor Nashriq, Ahmad Zuhairi, Mohd Haris and

Nurul Haszeli, 2011). The paperless operations

dashboard must be able to accommodate offline

process mapping of operational, tactical as well as

strategic process as needed in order to succeed in

meeting this criteria. If people are kept coming back

and forth from paper to paperless dashboard, this

initiative will eventually be washed-out in the near

future.

The third criterion is job automation that we

wanted to capture over time. Ability to generate

automatic data and reports would be the most

important feature of paperless dashboard. With this

feature, user would not be wasting time generating

data and reports that turns out to be repetitive job

over time (Eckerson, 2006), (Petrakis and Engiles,

2000), (Bos, Blanken and Huisman, 2011), (Jain,

Arim, and Li, 2008). By automatically running

scripts through the back end of the dashboard, this

feature definitely is an added advantage to any

paperless dashboard. This feature will help the user

to focus and concentrate more on monitoring,

analyzing and prediction of the data.

The fourth criterion is real-time and accurate data

available for analysis whenever users needed for

either analysis or reviewing current performance

(Noor Nashriq, Ahmad Zuhairi, Mohd Haris and

Nurul Haszeli, 2011) and (Plimmer, 2010). By using

scheduled task, monitoring scripts can be done

automatically while eliminating any human errors

thus; can help to guarantee data accuracy of the

dashboard especially when dealing with operation,

tactical and as well as for strategic purposes.

With dashboard personalization, users are able to

customize dashboard page and look and feels

according to their job roles (Bharosa, Meijer,

Janssen, and Brave, 2010), (Marshall, 2009) and

(Triola, Feldman, Pearlman and Kalet, 2004) and

(Nagios, n.d.) The most important point is the

dashboard is able to customize according to user

technical and management background – whether it

is operational, tactical and strategic. This feature will

help user to utilize the dashboard functionality thus

improve business and operation management.

When there is analyzing data process involved,

system admin will have to rely on audit capability of

our dashboard (Steurbaut, et al., 2010), (Sellen and

Harper, 2003) and (Triola, Feldman, Pearlman and

Kalet, 2004). By storing historical data and retrieving

for auditing past data, user will be able to conduct an

in-depth review analysis for find root cause of certain

problem.

The

last but not least is alert and notification

messages. This is the capability of the dashboard to

alert and notify the admin for any possible issues so

that they can take action before a huge disaster could

happen (Eckerson, 2006) and (Gormish, Piersol,

Gudan, and Barrus, 2009). System will be 100%

responsible to monitor the system using generated

scripts without having human intervention.

5 COMPARATIVE STUDY

We had briefly discussed seven criteria which

contribute to the success of paperless operational

dashboard. A comparative study was conducted on a

few dashboards based on seven criteria of well-

defined paperless operations dashboard. For this, the

study is limited to dashboards commonly used such

as Nagios, Zenoss, Ganglia, Cognos, OpManager and

Cacti and MIMOS Operations Dashboard.

5.1 Comprehensive

Zenoss offers cataloged view state of managed

servers and services (Zenoss, n.d.) This means that

the services can be grouped according to their classes

and functions. Nagios on the other hand, can only

handle medium size infrastructure. Hence it would be

very suitable for small to company with medium IT

operations (Cacti, n.d.). For complete end-to-end IT

network and infrastructure monitoring with advanced

fault and performance management, Opmanager

would be the best choice to implement (Opmanager,

n.d.). Cacti and Ganglia provide RRDTool charting

of industry standard with high performance data

logging and graphing system for time series data

(Cacti, n.d.) and (Ganglia, n.d.). On the contrary,

MIMOS Operations dashboard offers high level view

of networked diagrams for critical servers and

services as well network connectivity of the whole

infrastructure in one page (Plimmer, 2010)

Cacti and Zenoss can monitor most of the basic

information of servers and services (Cacti, n.d.) and

(Zenoss, n.d.). This includes system heartbeat or

availability of the servers and services. Nagios, Cacti

and Opmanager offer more performance indicators to

monitor especially for advanced monitoring e.g.

outages or performance degradations for CPU,

memory and disk space, network traffic, temperature

of host of the servers (Nagios, n.d.), (Cacti, n.d.) and

(Opmanager, n.d.). Compare to others, Ganglia can

only monitor physical information on particular

nodes (Ganglia, n.d.). For MIMOS Operations

Dashboard, there three sets of performance indicators

that are monitored – server uptime and availability as

EHST/ICGREEN 2012

well as disaster recovery status (Noor Nashriq,

Ahmad Zuhairi, Mohd Haris and Nurul Haszeli,

2011).

Result of comprehensive criteria is tabulated in

Table 2.

Table 2: Comparison on comprehensive criterion.

Dashboard Comprehensive

Zenoss

• Offers catalogued view of servers and

services involved

• Monitor most of the basic information

of server and services

Nagios

• Handle small to medium

infrastructure

• More advanced monitoring provided

Opmanager

• Complete end to end monitoring with

fault management

• More advanced monitoring provided

Cacti

• High performance data logging for

time series data

• More advanced monitoring provided

Ganglia

• High performance data logging for

time series data

• Monitor physical information on

particular notes

MIMOS

Operations

Dashboard

• High level networked diagram of

infrastructure

• Three sets of performance indicator –

uptime, availability and disaster

recovery status

5.2 Process Mapping

As listed in Table 3, among the six dashboards, only

Zenoss (Zenoss, n.d.) and Cacti (Cacti, n.d.) are

capable to conduct trend prediction even though it is

still minimal activities at the moment. Nagios

(Nagios, n.d.), Ganglia (Ganglia, n.d.) and

(Opmanager, n.d.). and MIMOS Operation dashboard

only provides real-time monitoring and manual trends

analysis on the historical logs and events provided.

None of the dashboards serves strategic functions in

their dashboard.

Table 3: Comparison on process mapping criteria.

Dashboard Process Mapping

Zenoss Operational, tactical with trend

prediction

Nagios Operational and tactical

Opmanager Operational and tactical

Cacti Operational, tactical with trend

prediction

Ganglia Operational and tactical

MIMOS

Operations

Dashboard

Operational

5.3 Automation

All of the dashboards have specific automation

scripts designated for every application and system.

The users only need to key in the respective IPs and

other information before the scripts will go and

retrieve the needed status and return it to the dash

board.

Zenoss automatically build and maintain service

dependency mappings with real-time discovery and

topology modeling in one single click (Zenoss, n.d.).

Nagios uses external plugins that runs intermittent

checks on hosts and services in some predetermined

interval (Cacti, n.d.). Similar with Zenoss,

Opmanager also depended on its automated network

discovery to scan the network, servers and services

status (Zenoss, n.d.). Cacti possess a mechanism

which allows users to generate custom scripts that

can be used to gather data before dumping it on the

dashboard (Cacti, n.d.). Ganglia comprises of three

daemons that together they will run on each cluster

nodes being monitored and collect states of the result

(

Josephsen, 2007). The web-based frontend will

ensure that the collected data will be presented in

real-time dynamic web pages graphs. MIMOS

Operation Dashboard backend engine will run

custom scripts every 2 minutes to collect

performance indicator data and validating them with

some specific validation rules before sending it for

visualization. The summarized findings are tabulated

in Table 4.

Table 4: Comparison on automation criteria.

Dashboard Automation

Zenoss With real-time discovery and topology

modeling

Nagios Runs intermittent checks some

predetermined interval

Opmanager Automated network discovery

Cacti Generate custom script for data gathering

Ganglia Daemons run checking and collect states

in predefined time

MIMOS

Operations

Dashboard

Backend engine runs scripts to collect

performance

5.4 Real-time and Data Accuracy

As tabulated in Table 5, all dashboards provide real-

time data with probability lagged status of maximum

five minutes. However this interval can be

configured depending on business needs. For

accuracy purposes, respective dashboards will set

specific rules to send repeated scripts to validate the

status if negative status is passed during the first

Reusability and Sustainability in Operations Dashboard - Comparative Study

result. This is crucial to IT operations as they do not

want to focus their effort into some false alarm of

respective devices.

For Zenoss, the network and devices will be

checked by ping collector (Citrix, 2012). By default,

ping timeout will be 1.5 seconds and if it fails to

response, collector will send out 2 retries. If the

devices or network fails to responds in 1.5 seconds in

three tries, an event will be created and highlighted in

the dashboard.

Scheduling for check events for Nagios is

customizable. By default the interval length for every

check is 1 minute. There is a retry check option that

can help to double check any negative result and

validate them (Josephsen, 2007). This is to ensure

that the service is down for certain amount of time

before notifying the technical people. Max check

attempt option will help to limit the attempt checking

the services in any negative cases. However, these

options only applicable to services monitoring. Host

checks will be only carried out when needed, usually

when services on that specific host failed to respond

in the predefined time (Josephsen, 2007).

For OpManager, ICMP ping will be push over to

the monitored devices every 2 minutes (Manage

Engine, 2012). If there is no response after two

consecutive pings, then OpManager will consider the

device as unavailable. The number of pings and their

time interval can be assigned depending on our

business needs. Opmanager will use Telnet to

monitor non-ICMP environment. The default polling

interval is 5 minutes and this can be customizable.

Moreover, Opmanager also has mechanism of alarm

propagation that rely on a few negative consecutive

polls namely attention, warning and critical state.

Color coded label will be also used to differentiate

these alarm state (Manage Engine, 2012).

Cacti and Ganglia both are using RRDTool

charting for in their dashboard. Cacti graphs usually

will take two or three polling intervals to show up

with 5 minutes of default polling interval (Nuryani

Arisal, Suwarningsih, Wirahman, 2007). Ganglia on

the other hand, sets 15 seconds of polling interval by

the default (Ganglia, n.d.). However, this value can

be reconfigured according to its data source –

whether it is grid or cluster.

MIMOS Operation Dashboard provides custom

scripts of ping for every critical hosts and telnet for

services check. The interval length of every check is

about 2 minutes and the system will poll three

consecutive checks before releasing ‘DOWN’ status

to the dashboard. In between the three consecutive

checks, the dashboard will display ‘WARNING’

status to pre-notify the technical people to stand by.

Table 5: Comparison on real time and data accuracy

criterion.

Dashboard Real-Time & Data Accuracy

Zenoss Ping timeout is 1.5 seconds with 2

retries

Nagios Check interval length is 60 seconds

with retry check option and max

check attempt

Opmanager ICMP ping interval length is 2

minutes with 2 retries

Telnet polling interval is 5 minutes

Has alarm propagation and color

coded label.

Cacti Polling interval is 5 minutes

Ganglia Polling interval is 15 seconds

MIMOS

Operations

Polling interval is 2 minutes and 3

retries

5.5 Personalization

This feature is useful when people are from different

background and expertise wants to use the paperless

operation dashboard to their advantage. Since users

may come from operational, tactical or strategic

functions, dashboard may need to be customized

according user needs. However, Zenoss (Zenoss,

n.d.) and Cacti (Cacti, n.d.) are the only dashboard

that provides this features embedded by default. The

other dashboard will need to be customized to add

this feature. Result of personalization criteria is

tabulated in Table 2.

Table 6: Comparison on personalization criterion.

Dashboard Personalization

Zenoss Possess this feature

Nagios Do not possess this feature

Opmanager Do not possess this feature

Cacti Possess this feature

Ganglia Do not possess this feature

MIMOS

Operations

Dashboard

Do not possess this feature

5.6 Audit Capability

By default, all dashboards have the audit features

although the presentation of logs events may varies

between them. Users are able to see historical events

of any opportunity or issues especially tactical and

strategic teams. However, MIMOS Operation

dashboard does need to rely on other tools in order to

process and analyze past data (Noor Nashriq, Ahmad

Zuhairi, Mohd Haris, Nurul Haszeli, 2011). Table 7

briefly summarized this finding.

EHST/ICGREEN 2012

Table 7: Comparison on audit capability criterion.

Dashboard Audit Capability

Zenoss Possess this feature

Nagios Possess this feature

Opmanager Possess this feature

Cacti Possess this feature

Ganglia Possess this feature

MIMOS

Operations

Dashboard

Do not possess this feature

5.7 Alert and Notification

When there is a server or services outage, a paperless

operation dashboard should be able to trigger and

send a notification to the technical team for them to

act on. The normal alerts or notifications are email,

SMS or telephone. As listed in Table 8, among the

six dashboards, Ganglia are not able to send to send

notification to their respective standby team

(Ganglia, n.d.) by default. Other dashboards can use

either email or SMS for outage notification [Zenoss,

n.d.), (Nagios, n.d.), (Opmanager, n.d.), (Cacti, n.d.)

whereas MIMOS Operations Dashboard depends on

other plugin to send alerts and notification. The

summarized findings are tabulated in Table 8.

Table 8: Comparison on audit capability criterion.

Dashboard Alert and Notification

Zenoss Email, SMS or telephone.

Nagios Email, SMS or telephone.

Opmanager Email, SMS or telephone.

Cacti Email, SMS or telephone.

Ganglia Do not possess this feature

MIMOS

Operations

Dashboard

Email, SMS or telephone.

6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

WORKS

Based on the above discussion, we have summarized

seven criteria that a paperless operations dashboard

should have in order to ensure that these paperless

initiatives will be carried out successfully in an

organization. We have compared five off-the-shelf

operations dashboards and one in-house developed

dashboard and briefly listed the features related to

these criteria in the later section. However to make

these initiatives a success, understanding of the

principles and reason of carrying out this initiatives is

imperative. It is hoped that this paper can assist in

deciding the best paperless operations dashboard for

their organization as well as ensuring that the

initiatives last, usable and sustainable throughout the

years.

We plan to improve MIMOS Operations

dashboard to include historical logs and events for

trends analysis as well as incorporate some business

intelligence feature for trend predictions. Moreover,

there is a need to come out with at least one

mechanism to minimize energy savings through

scripts and automation that we listed above. Lastly,

our dashboard will be equipped with intuitive

approach for strategic teams to rely on.

REFERENCES

Wikipedia. 2001. Dasboard (Software). [Online]. Availa-

ble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashboard_%28soft

ware%29

Sorenson, M. 2005. What is Dashboard [Online].

Available: http://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/

dashboard.

Maarten, M. 2001. Digital Dashboard: Web Parts

Integrate with Internet Explorer and Outlook to Build

Personal Portals [Online]. Available: http://msdn.

microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc301617.aspx

Plimmer, B., Apperley, M. 2007. Making Paperless Work.

In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCHI New Zealand

chapters international conference on Computer Human

interaction design centered HCI. ACM Press, pp. 1-8.

Steurbaut, K., Colpaert, K., Van Hoecke, S., Steurbaut, S.,

Danneels, C., Decruyenaere, J., De Turck, F. 2010.

Design and Evaluation of a Service Oriented

Architecture for Paperless ICU Tarification. Journal of

Medical Systems. pp. 1-14

Wayne W. Eckerson. 2006. Performance Dashboards:

Measuring, Monitoring, and Managing Your Business.

John Wiley and Sons.

Gormish, M., Piersol, K., Gudan, K., and Barrus, J. 2009.

An E-Writer For Documents Plus Strokes.

In Proceedings of the 9th ACM symposium on

Document engineering (DocEng '09). ACM, New

York, NY, USA, 157-160.

Matthew J. Bassignani, David A. Dierolf, David L. Roberts

and Steven Lee. 2010. Paperless Protocoling of CT

and MRI Requests at an Outpatient Imaging Center.

JOURNAL OF DIGITAL IMAGING, Volume 23,

Number 2, 203-210.

John M. Petrakis and Michael J. Engiles. 2000. Creating A

Paperless Municipal Court. In Proceedings of the 32nd

conference on Winter simulation (WSC '00). Society

for Computer Simulation International, San Diego, CA,

USA, 2029-2035.

Abigail J. Sellen and Richard H.R. Harper. 2003. The Myth

of the Paperless Office. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,

USA.

Bos, T., Blanken, M., Huisman, H. 2011. Towards A

Paperless Air Traffic Control Tower. In Proceedings of

Reusability and Sustainability in Operations Dashboard - Comparative Study

the 2nd international conference on Human centered

design (HCD'11), Masaaki Kurosu (Ed.). Springer-

Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 360-368.

Noor Nashriq, R., Ahmad Zuhairi, I., Mohd Haris, A.,

Nurul Haszeli, A. 2011. Operations Dashboard:

Comparative Study. International Conference on

Graphic and Image Processing [ICGIP 2011], 2011.

Plimmer B. 2010. A Comparative Evaluation Of

Annotation Software For Grading Programming

Assignments. In Proceedings of the Eleventh

Australasian Conference on User Interface - Volume

106 (AUIC '10), Christof Lutteroth and Paul Calder

(Eds.), Vol. 106. Australian Computer Society, Inc.,

Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 14-22.

Zhu, K., Nii, H., Fernando, O., Cheok, A. 2011. E-Letter:

A Paper-Based Instant Messaging System Using

Selective Wireless Power Transfer. In ACM

SIGGRAPH 2011 Posters (SIGGRAPH '11). ACM,

New York, NY, USA, Article 43, 1 pages.

Plimmer B., Mason P. 2006. A Pen-Based Paperless

Environment For Annotating And Marking Student

Assignments. In Proceedings of the 7th Australasian

User interface conference - Volume 50 (AUIC '06),

Wayne Piekarski (Ed.), Vol. 50. Australian Computer

Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 37-44

Bharosa, N., Meijer, S., Janssen, M., Brave, F. 2010. Are

We Prepared? Experience From Developing

Dashboards For Disaster Preparation. 2010. In:

Proceedings of 7th International ISCRAM Conference,

Seattle, USA.

Marshall, C.C. 2009. Reading And Interactivity In The

Digital Library: Creating An Experience That

Transcends Paper. In: Proceedings of the

CLIR/Kanazawa Institute of Technology Roundtable.

Triola, M., Feldman, H., Pearlman, E., Kalet, A. 2004.

Meeting Requirements And Changing Culture: The

Development Of A Web-Based Clinical Skills

Evaluation System. J Gen Intern Med 2004; 19:490-

493.

Jain, J., Arim, I., Li, J. 2008.Designing Dashboards For

Managing Model Lifecycle. In: CHiMiT ‘08

Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Symposium on Computer

Human Interaction for Management of Information

Technology.

Nagios. [Online]. Available: http://nagios.com/ [Assessed:

Apr 20, 2012]

Cacti [Online]. Available: http://www.cacti.net/ [Assessed:

Apr 20, 2012]

Ganglia. [Online]. Available: http://ganglia.Source

forge.net/. [Assessed: Apr 20, 2012]

Opmanager. [Online]. Available: http://www.manage

engine.com/network-monitoring/ [Assessed: Apr 20,

2012]

Zenoss. [Online]. Available: http://www.zenoss.com/

[Assessed: Apr 20, 2012]

Zenoss Community. [Online] Available: http://community.

zenoss.org [Assessed: Apr 20, 2012]

Citrix. 2012. How to Manage NetScaler 9.2 Using SNMP

by Cacti. [Online]. Available: http://support.citrix.com/

article/CTX125187. [Assessed: Apr 20, 2012]

Nuryani Arisal, A., Suwarningsih, W., Wirahman, T. 2007.

Monitoring Cluster On Online Compiler With Ganglia.

Whitepaper in EEPIS Repository.

Josephsen, D. 2007. Building A Monitoring Infrastructure

With Nagios. Prentice Hall. 23-26.

Manage Engine. 2012. Availability Monitoring. [Online]

Available: http://www.manageengine.com/network-

monitoring/availability-monitoring.html. [Assessed:

Apr 20, 2012]

Bowling, J. 2008. Zenoss And The Art Of Network

Monitoring. Whitepaper. Linux Journal, Aug 01, 2008.

Webber, L., Michael Wallace. 2009. Green Tech: How To

Plan And Implement Sustainable IT Solutions.

AMACOM.

EHST/ICGREEN 2012