EMC GLOBAL DATA PROTECTION INDEX

1© Copyright 2014 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved.© Copyright 2014 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved.
EMC GLOBAL DATA
PROTECTION INDEX
KEY FINDINGS & RESULTS FOR
AMERICAS

THE DATAPROTECTION LANDSCAPE
ARE YOU ON SOLID GROUND?

GLOBAL KEY FINDINGS
GLOBALLY, ENTERPRISES ARE LOSING AS MUCH AS $1.7 TRILLION THROUGH DATA
LOSS AND UNPLANNED DOWNTIME
Adopting advanced
data protection
tools leads to
reduced data loss
87% of businesses
are behind the
curve for data
protection maturity
and 71% of
businesses are not
fully confident of
restoring their data
62% of respondents
said at least one of
the following: big
data, hybrid cloud,
mobile devices, is
‘difficult’ or ‘very
difficult’ to protect

DEMOGRAPHICS
INTERVIEWED 3,300
IT DECISION-MAKERS
IN 3 REGIONS:
Americas
(575)
Asia Pacific Japan
(1,250)
Europe,
Middle East,
and Africa
(1,475)
24
COUNTRIES
TOTAL
ORGANIZATIONS
OF 250
OR MORE
EMPLOYEES
BOTH PRIVATE
AND PUBLIC
ORGANIZATIONS
INDEPENDENT
RESEARCH AND
ANALYSIS

DATA PROTECTION
MATURITY

MATURITY INDEX
* Exact scoring included in appendix – questions show
points used for the original model with a maximum score
of 68. All scores multiplied by a factor of 1.47 to create a
model of 100 points
Maturity scored between
1–100 points*
Points awarded based on the
maturity of their data
protection strategy
More points awarded for:
• Shorter recovery times
• Confidence in backup infrastructure
• Modern backup systems
• Off-site replication

 Leaders (scored 76-100 points)
 Adopters (scored 51-75 points)
WHO IS LEADING THE WAY?
Figure 1: Analysis of maturity
Base: all respondents (3,300)
AHEAD OF
‘MATURITY’
CURVE
 Evaluators (scored 26-50 points)
 Laggards (scored 1-25 points)
Global Results Americas Results
Figure 2: Analysis of maturity
Base: all respondents from Americas (575)
35.0%
50.4%
13.2%
1.4%
Laggards
Evaluators
Adopters
Leaders
36.8%
49.5%
11.3%
2.4%
Laggards
Evaluators
Adopters
Leaders

Figure 3: Analysis of maturity – showing frequency of points scored
Base: all respondents (3300)
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
NUMBEROFCOMPANIESGLOBAL IT MATURITY
SHOWING FREQUENCY OF POINTS SCORED
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
MATURITY POINTS SCORED
25 50 75 100
Laggards 37%
(1,214 Companies)
Evaluators 50%
(1,635 Companies)
Adopters 11%
(372 Companies)
Leaders 2%
(79 Companies)
AMERICAS

PROFILE CHARACTERISTICS
LEADERS
LAGGARDS
ADOPTERS
EVALUATORS
Use archiving application with offsite
replication
Back up with deduplication & offsite
replication
Recovery time 2 – 5 hours
Moderately confident of ability to
restore
Active-active instances are core
component of strategy
Archive to tape
Backup to tape
Recovery time more than one day
Not confident in ability to restore
Backup is core component of strategy
Use archiving application with
retention policies
Disaster tolerant replication with
near-zero RPO/RTO
Recovery time one hour or less
Very confident of ability to restore
Standby or virtualized servers are
core component of strategy
Archive to disk
Backup to disk
Recovery time 6 – 24 hours
Doubtful of ability to restore
Replication is core component
of strategy

WHERE ARE THE MOST MATURE
ORGANIZATIONS?
Figure 4: Analysis of average maturity score by region and country
AMERICAS:
33.7
EMEA:
32.2
APJ:
34.7
AVERAGE SCORE ON THE MATURITY MATRIX
37.6
34.3
31.0
29.1
37.8
35.6 34.8
33.5
31.8 31.5 31.0 30.9
27.3 27.0
42.5 41.7
39.1
37.8
36.6
32.9
30.7
29.5 29.5
26.9

• Businesses in China and Hong
Kong most likely to be ahead
of the curve
• Outside of Asia, the US and the
Netherlands most likely to be
ahead of the curve
• UAE, Turkey and
Switzerland are least likely to
be ahead of maturity curve
MATURITY RANK
WHICH MARKETS ARE AHEAD?
RANK COUNTRY
% OF BUSINESSES AHEAD
OF MATURITY CURVE*
1 China 29.6%
2 Hong Kong 27.2%
3 Netherlands 20.8%
4 Singapore 20.0%
5 USA 19.5%
6 India 19.2%
7 South Africa 18.4%
8 Indonesia 18.4%
9 Mexico 17.6%
10 Germany 15.5%
11 Australia 14.4%
12 UK 13.0%
13 The Philippines 11.2%
14 Thailand 11.2%
15 Canada 9.6%
16 Russia 9.6%
17 Italy 9.6%
18 Brazil 8.8%
19 Japan 8.0%
20 South Korea 8.0%
21 France 6.5%
22 Switzerland 6.4%
23 Turkey 5.6%
24 UAE 0.0%
*Please note that the percentages have been rounded
to one decimal place

THE IMPORTANCE OF
DATA PROTECTION

• The majority (71%) of
respondents consider data
protection to be totally critical
to their organization’s success
• Most likely to consider data
protection to be totally critical:
– Brazil (82%)
– US (80%)
• The consulting sector is most
likely to see data protection as
totally critical (83%)
THE CRITICALITY OF DATA PROTECTION
Figure 5: “Do you consider data protection to be totally critical to the ongoing success of your organization?”
DO YOU CONSIDER DATA PROTECTION CRITICAL
TO THE SUCCESS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION?
71%
23%
5%
1%
Very
Important
But Not
Critical
Totally
critical
Plays no role in
our success
Not very important

SPENDING ON DATA PROTECTION
• Average company spend:
– $254 million on IT
– $21 million on data protection, an
average of 8.16% of annual IT
budget
• The US spends the most:
– $32 million on data protection
– 8.91% of IT budget on data
protection
Figure 6: Analysis of average spend of revenue on IT, and of IT budget on data protection
Average percentage
of annual IT budget
that is spent on
data protection
8.16%
Average percentage
of domestic annual
revenue that is
spent annually on IT
9.67%

Figure 7: “Is your data protection infrastructure built on technology from more than one vendor?”
• 67% have more than one data
protection vendor
– Three vendors on average
• 79% from the financial services
sector have more than one
vendor
• Organizations with more than
5,000 employees are most likely
to have multiple vendors (73%)
THE NUMBER OF DATA PROTECTION VENDORS
10%
Have no specific
vendor
23%
Have one
vendor
67%
Have more than
one vendor

• Organizations with three or
more vendors spend a greater
proportion of their IT budget on
data protection
• In Americas, those with three
or more vendors spend10.18%,
compared to 7.49% with one
vendor
THE EFFECT OF NUMBER OF VENDORS ON
SPEND
Figure 8: Analysis of average spend of IT budget on data protection, cut by number of data protection vendors
SHARE OF ANNUAL IT BUDGET SPENT ON DATA
PROTECTION
10.18%
Three or more
data protection
vendors
7.49%
One data
protection
vendor
6.96%
Two data
protection
vendors

• 64% suffered disruption in the last
12 months
– 79% of consulting
– 78% of private healthcare
– 71% of public sector
• Organizations in Americas are more
likely to suffered downtime (51%)
than those in EMEA (48%) or APJ
(49%)
• 72% of organizations in the USA
suffered disruptions, compared with
59% in Brazil and 56% in Mexico
SUFFERING DISRUPTIONS
Figure 9: “Has your organization suffered from either unplanned systems downtime or data loss in the last 12 months?”
DISRUPTIONS SUFFERED IN LAST 12 MONTHS
64%
Suffered data loss
or unplanned
downtime
51%
Suffered
unplanned
downtime
31%
Suffered
data loss
19%
Suffered
data loss
and
downtime

• The more vendors a business
has, the more likely it is to
experience data loss
• 39% of organizations with three
or more vendors experienced
data loss in the last 12 months
THE EFFECT OF THE NUMBER OF VENDORS ON
DISRUPTIONS
Figure 10: Analysis of the organizations suffering disruptions, cut by the number of data protection vendors
DISRUPTIONS SUFFERED
(BY NUMBER OF VENDORS)
39%
21%
30%
Three or more data protection vendors
One data protection vendor
Two data protection vendors
Data loss

• Average annual loss per company
is 3.65TB of data
– Equivalent to around 37 million e-
mails
– Costs $1.32 million
• Businesses with one vendor lost
1.29TB compared to 5.75TB for
those with 3 or more vendors
DATA LOSS
Figure 11: Analysis of the average data loss over the last 12 months, cut by number of data protection vendors
Base: respondents whose organization has suffered data loss (181)
AVERAGE DATA LOSS IN TERABYTES (TB)
1.98
3.65
Three or
more data
protection
vendors
One data
protection
vendor
Two data
protection
vendors
5.75
1.29
2.58
No external
data
protection
vendors
Total

• There were 26 hours of
unplanned downtime on average
in the last 12 months, at a loss
of $0.56 million
• Those with three or more
vendors lost $0.69 million
compared to organizations with
one vendor ($0.33 million)
WHAT IS THE COST OF DOWNTIME?
Figure 12: Analysis of the average cost of downtime, cut by number of data protection vendors
Base: respondents whose organization has suffered downtime (296)
AVERAGE COST OF UNPLANNED
SYSTEMS DOWNTIME
(IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
$0.22
$0.56
Three or
more data
protection
vendors
One data
protection
vendor
Two data
protection
vendors
$0.69
$0.33
$0.56
No external
data
protection
vendors
Total

ESTIMATEDANNUALCOST FOR DISRUPTIONS
Downtime
$83.1
Billion
Data loss
$238.5
Billion
$321.6
BILLION
TOTAL

PERCENTAGE OF DATA BACKED UP
CONTINUOUSLY BY BUSINESSES
• 30% of data is backed up
continuously
• Around one fifth (21%) of
organizations do not back up
anything continuously
• 94% of those “ahead of the
curve” back up some data
continuously, while only 73%
of Laggards do so
FREQUENCY OF CONTINUOUS BACKUP
Figure 13: Analysis of those that backup data continuously
0% of data backed up continuously
1% - 25% of data backed up continuously
50%- 75% of data backed up continuously
100% of data backed up continuously
21%
39%
22%
6%
3%8%

WHAT IS CAUSING THESE DISRUPTIONS?
Figure 14: “What were the causes of your data loss and/or systems downtime?”
Base: respondents whose organization suffered data loss or downtime (370)
52%
44%
34%
27%
24%
23%
19%
12%
11%
11%
5%
Hardware failure
Loss of power
Software failure
Data corruption
Accidental user error
Security breach (e.g. malware, spyware, viruses, botnets or
cyber-terrorism)
Loss of backup power
Physical security (e.g. loss/theft of equipment)
The fault of service/cloud providers
Natural disaster (e.g. tsunami, hurricane, earthquake)
Deliberate employee sabotage

THE CONSEQUENCES OF DISRUPTION
Figure 15: “Have any of the above been commercial consequences of the data
loss and/or systems downtime you have experienced over the last 12 months?”
Base: respondents whose organization suffered data loss or downtime (370)
50%
34%
33%
25%
25%
16%
13%
11%
10%
8%
5%
Loss of employee productivity
Delay in product/service development
Loss of revenue
Loss of customer confidence/loyalty
Delay in getting products/services to market
Loss of a new business opportunity
Loss of customers
Loss of an incremental business opportunity
Loss of business to a competitor
Loss of repeat business
There have been no commercial consequences

• 63% are not fully confident that
they can recover systems/data
today from all platforms
• Americas are more confident
than EMEA (27%) or APJ (27%)
• Only 27% from the public sector
are very confident. The IT sector
is most confident (44%)
ARE ORGANIZATIONS CONFIDENT?
Figure 16: “How confident are you that, in the event of a data loss incident, you can fully recover systems/data
today from all platforms, on-premise and off-premise, in order to meet business service level agreements?”
Used for maturity matrix
Very
confident
37%
Not very
confident
63%

DATA PROTECTION
METHODS

• 47% use backup as the primary
protection strategy
• 7% use active-active as a key
component; less than those
from EMEA (10%) or APJ (9%)
• Those with active-active as a
key component suffered less
data loss than those with backup
– 19% active-active vs. 30%
backup
WHAT STRATEGIES ARE IN PLACE?
Figure 17: “Which of the above best characterises your organization's current data protection environment infrastructure?”
7%
12%
14%
19%
47%
Active-active instances of applications
(including cloud) are key component of
our availability strategy
Replication is the main component of our
availability strategy
Standby servers on a remote site are the
main components of our availability
strategy
Virtual servers with restart capabilities
(including cloud) are the main
components of our availability strategy
Backup is the main component of our
availability strategy

WHAT OTHER STRATEGIES ARE IN PLACE?
THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON THE TECHNOLOGY IN PLACE FOR AVAILABILITY, ALTHOUGH AN AVERAGE OF THREE
STRATEGIES SHOWS A VARIED APPROACH ACROSS ALL ORGANIZATIONS
Figure 18: “Which technologies/strategies are in place to help you manage the availability of your applications, systems, and data?”
42%
38%
34%
28%
26%
26%
24%
22%
16%
15%
10%
Automatic backup to the cloud
Tape backup and tapes are kept off site (on own premises)
Disk-based backup and recovery including clones/snaps
Replication of both applications and data (such as virtual machine images)
Tape backup and tapes are kept off site (on 3rd party premises)
WAN-based replication of backup and recovery images to second site
Backup appliance with deduplication
Replication to a second site with restart capabilities (active/passive)
Tape backup and tapes go home with employees
Dynamic mobility of virtual applications between data centres
Disaster tolerant replication (active/active) with near zero RPO and RTO
STRATEGIES TO HELP MANAGE AVAILABILITY OF APPLICATIONS, SYSTEMS & DATA

DESIRE TO HAVE VISIBILITY/CONTROL OVER DATA
PROTECTION (ON-PREMISE & IN CLOUD)
WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE CLOUD?
RESPONSIBILITY FOR DATA PROTECTION
FOR PUBLIC CLOUD-BASED APPLICATIONS
Figure 19: “For public cloud based applications, which
organizations are responsible for data protection?”
Base: respondents whose organization is using a type of
cloud as a platform for infrastructure (339)
Figure 20: “Do you want to have visibility and/or control
over how your data is being protected both on-premise
and in the cloud?”
Base: respondents whose organization is using a type
of cloud as a platform for infrastructure (339)
72%
61%
18%
My IT department as a whole
The cloud service provider
Each department in my
organization, dependent on their
use of the application in question
70%
51%
4%
Yes – I want to have to visibility of
how the organization's on-premise
and off-premise data is being
protected
Yes - I want to have to control of
how the organization's on-premise
and off-premise data is being
protected
No – I only want to manage my
local data; the cloud service
provider should manage off-
premise data

WHERE IS DATA STORED?
PRIMARY DATA
Figure 21: Analysis of average amount of primary data on different platforms
37%
19%
18%
7%
7%
6%
5%
2%
On-premise (physical servers)
On-premise (virtualized servers)
On-premise (private cloud)
Desktop/laptop
Hybrid cloud (applications run on a combination of private
and public clouds)
Mainframe
Public cloud
Mobile devices (e.g. tablets, smartphones etc.)

WHAT IS HARDEST TO PROTECT?
MAJORITY DO NOT HAVE DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN FOR SOME APPLICATIONS
THAT THEY FIND HARDEST TO PROTECT
MOST DIFFICULT APPLICATIONS/PLATFORMS
TO PROTECT
APPLICATIONS/PLATFORMS
WITHOUT A RECOVERY PLAN
Figure 22: Analysis of applications/platforms that do not have disaster
recovery plans
Figure 23: Analysis of applications/platforms
that are difficult to protect
69%
76%
77%
Big data/data lakes
Mobile devices
Hybrid cloud applications
26%
32%
37%
Hybrid cloud applications
Mobile devices
Big data

• 59% currently use backup-as a
service; further 28% plan to in
the future
• 44% plan to use archive-as-a-
service and 42% plan to use
data recovery-as-a-service in
the future
FUTURE STRATEGIES
Figure 24: “Are you currently, using or looking to adopt, any of the above data protection cloud services in the next 12 months?”
DATA PROTECTION CLOUD SERVICES
59%
38%
41%
28%
44%
42%
Backup-as-a-Service
Archive-as-a-Service
Data recovery-as-a-Service
Currently using
Plan to adopt at
some point

SUMMARY FOR AMERICAS
71% consider
data protection
to be totally
critical to their
organization’s
success, still
64% suffered
downtime or
data loss in last
12 months
More data
protection
vendors means
organizations are
more likely to
suffer data loss
85% of
businesses are
behind the curve
for data
protection
maturity and
63% of
businesses are
not fully
confident in their
ability to restore
apps/data
ENTERPRISES ARE LOSING AS MUCH AS $321.6 BILLION THROUGH DATA LOSS AND
UNPLANNED DOWNTIME

CONCLUSION
Data loss and downtime
are expensive
Most companies globally are
behind the curve and feeling
pain
Newer workloads and exploding data
volumes will continue to put pressure on
data protection
This can’t be fixed in silos –
isolated solutions by different
vendors increase cost and risk
A continuum of technologies supports
availability and protection requirements for
different tiers of apps/data

EMC RECOMMENDATIONS
Match your data protection approach with the availability and protection requirements
for your tiers of applications/data
Evaluate the gaps in your protection strategy that may emerge from disparate vendor
solutions
Manage an integrated data protection strategy and maintain a level of visibility and
control for application owners
Understand who “owns” data protection – especially in the cloud
Make sure there’s an appropriate data protection solution in place for all of your
critical data no matter where it is or how it is generated

APPENDIX (i)
MATURITY SCORING
Which of the following best characterises
your organization's current data protection
environment infrastructure?
• Backup is the main component of our availability
strategy – (1pt.)
• Replication is the main component of our availability
strategy – (3pts.)
• Standby servers on a remote site are the main
components of our availability strategy – (4pts.)
• Virtual servers with restart capabilities (including
cloud) are the main components of our availability
strategy - (5pts.)
• Active-active (two or more production data centres
that are always on, 24/7 with no downtime) instances
of applications (including cloud) are key component of
our availability strategy – (6pts.)
What best describes your organization's
archiving strategy?
• We don’t have an archiving strategy – (0pt.)
• We use a backup application to archive data onto tape
– (1pt.)
• We use an archiving application to archive data online
(e.g. onto disk) – (3pts.)
• We use an archiving application to archive data to
appliances that provide retention locking, litigation
hold etc. – (5pts.)
• We use an archiving application to archive data to
appliances that provide retention locking, litigation
hold etc. and replicate/keep a copy off site - (7pts.)

APPENDIX (ii)
MATURITY SCORING
• Tape backup and tapes go home with employees –
(1pt.)
• Tape backup and tapes are kept off site (on own
premises) – (2pts.)
• Tape backup and tapes are kept off site (on 3rd party
premises) – (2pts.)
• Automatic backup to the Cloud (2pts.)
• Disk-based backup and recovery including
clones/snaps – (3pts.)
• Backup appliance with deduplication – (4pts.)
• WAN-based replication of backup and recovery images
to second site – (4pts.)
• Replication of both applications and data (such as
virtual machine images) – (5pts.)
• Replication to a second site with restart capabilities
(active/passive) – (5pts.)
• Dynamic mobility of virtual applications between data
centres – (7pts.)
• Disaster tolerant replication (active/active) with near
zero RPO and RTO – (8pts.)
Which technologies/strategies are in place to help you manage the availability of your
applications, systems, and data? (Please select all that apply)

APPENDIX (iii)
MATURITY SCORING
During an unexpected event causing
downtime to our most critical applications,
how long is your recovery time?
• Our recovery time is more than one working day
(please specify) – (0pt.)
• Our recovery time is 12 - 24hours – (1pt.)
• Our recovery time is 6 -12 hours (2pts)
• Our recovery time is 3 – 6 hours (3pts)
• Our recovery time is 2 – 3 hours (4pts)
• Our recovery time is 1 – 2 hours – (5pts.)
• Our recovery time is less than an hour– (6pts.)
• Our recovery time is zero – (7pts.)
• I do not know – (0pt.)
How confident are you that, in the event of a
data loss incident, you can fully recover
systems/data today from all platforms, on
premise and off premise, in order to meet
business service level agreements?
• Very confident – (6pts.)
• Moderately confident – (4pts.)
• Some doubt – (3pts.)
• Not very confident – (1pts.)
• Not at all confident – (0pts.)

EMC GLOBAL DATA PROTECTION INDEX

EMC GLOBAL DATA PROTECTION INDEX

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to EMC GLOBAL DATA PROTECTION INDEX (20)

More from EMC (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

EMC GLOBAL DATA PROTECTION INDEX