This is a more common question than it seems.
And it is almost always accompanied by phrases like:
- “we have many alerts”
- “no one checks them”
- “we found out anyway from the users”
- “in the end it doesn’t do much good”
But here is something important:
👉 the problem is almost never the monitoring itself.
In simple
Monitoring fails when:
- is incorrectly configured
- generates too much noise
- no clear responsibility
- is not connected to a stock
👉 It’s not the tool. It’s how you use it.
The myth: “the tool is useless”.
Today there are very powerful tools available:
- Zabbix (infrastructure)
- Nagios (traditional monitoring)
- PRTG (fast and simple sensors)
- Datadog (modern observability)
- Dynatrace (Advanced APM)
- New Relic (telemetry and performance)
All of them work well.
All detect problems.
👉 So why don’t they help?
Because detecting is not the same as managing.
The real problem: too many alerts
One of the most common mistakes: to monitor everything… without criteria.
Result:
- hundreds or thousands of alerts
- false positives
- irrelevant notifications
- equipment fatigue
Nobody knows what is really important
Lack of context
Another common situation:
- an alert arrives
- but it doesn’t explain much
The team has to:
- research
- search for information
- cross-reference data
👉 time is lost before action is taken
No clear responsibility
Monitoring detects.
But it does not decide.
Then this happens:
- the alert arrives
- but no one responds
- or everyone assumes that someone else will
and the problem continues to grow
No flow of action
Many monitoring implementations end up like this:
👉 detect → report → end
But the most important thing is missing:
what happens next
- who takes the alert
- what is done
- when to climb
- how to follow up
👉 without this, monitoring is incomplete.
So why is it “no good”?
Because monitoring alone does not solve anything.
It is only the first step.
👉 Detecting is easy
👉 Reacting well is the hard part 👉 Reacting well is difficult
How to improve this?
Reduce noise
- remove irrelevant alerts
- adjust thresholds
- prioritize what is important
👉 less alerts, more focus.
2. Add context
Each alert should respond:
- what happened
- how serious it is
- which systems are affected
- what to do
👉 do not force the team to investigate from scratch.
3. Define responsible parties
Each alert must have:
someone to take it
And if you do not respond:
👉 automatic scaling
4. Connect with action
Monitoring does not end with the alert.
Must continue with:
- effective notification
- tracking
- resolution
- learning
👉 that’s real operation
Where does 24Cevent come in?
This is where many companies make the switch.
They continue to use their monitoring tools.
But they add a layer on top.
👉 a management layer
24Cevent takes alerts from tools such as Zabbix, Datadog or Dynatrace and handles:
- effective notification (calls, app, etc.)
- ensure that someone responds
- escalate if no response
- coordinate teams
- follow up
👉 turns alerts into actions
So what is really going on?
Your monitoring is probably working
But:
- is poorly tuned
- is not connected to processes
- does not have a management layer
therefore does not generate value
Monitoring is not the problem.
The problem is thinking that monitoring is enough.
Companies that really improve their operations do this:
👉 monitor well
👉 manage better
And that’s where everything changes.
If today you feel that your monitoring generates more noise than value, you probably don’t need to change tools, but rather improve the way you manage those alerts.
24Cevent allows you to take what you already have and turn it into a clear flow of action, ensuring real incident response, tracking and coordination.
