Over the years, I've watched, participated in researching and experienced the results of the positing of Gartner's disclosures. My analysis is as follows:
On any given subject at any given time, there is a .90 probability that the opinions expressed by Gartner will be either flat out wrong or miss the mark badly.
We hired Gartner to make recommendataions and paid a hefty sum. Good thing we ignored them.
The best use for the Gartner Group is for techs to manage to get them, make a presentation to management -- to make the points and use persuasion to advocate what we all know is the right thing to do [but management, being too dense to understand the issues, will listen to "experts" rather than to those they have hired to do the job].
Otherwise, I'd advise seeing what Forrester has to say because it's usually more sensible.
The most frightening thing is that Gartner has the ear of United States Congressmen. Ackkk!
Discussion on:
...but let's not forget that managements like 'ticks in boxes.' Makes them feel safe at having a deflecting finger to point.
"... or miss the mark badly."
Like when they averred that "subscription-based music" site sales would soon overtake those on sites like Apple's iTunes Store?
That was over five years ago, back when Real's CEO Glaser and somebody at Gartner were apparently good buddies (or something).
Ha ha ha ha.
Can you say MISS THE MARK?
Like when they averred that "subscription-based music" site sales would soon overtake those on sites like Apple's iTunes Store?
That was over five years ago, back when Real's CEO Glaser and somebody at Gartner were apparently good buddies (or something).
Ha ha ha ha.
Can you say MISS THE MARK?
To Tom Bittman?s Integrity. You said ?Today, we have a much more rigorous mathematical model ? we don?t just place dots? on MQs. Unfortunately, your employer has told the court the MQ report is "pure opinon," i.e., NOT BASED ON FACT AT ALL. To hide behind the First Amendment, your employer appears willing to throw the analysts? work under the bus. You said you?d be ?outta there? if you felt Gartner?s integrity ?bending? ? what now?
konleong,
Gravity is a fact. The how and why of gravity is largely opinion. Evolution is considered to be a fact. The how and why of evolution is opinion.
Apparently you believe 'pure opinion' cannot be based on facts. I'm not going to explain to you why you are incorrect. That is your homework assignment for this week.
Gravity is a fact. The how and why of gravity is largely opinion. Evolution is considered to be a fact. The how and why of evolution is opinion.
Apparently you believe 'pure opinion' cannot be based on facts. I'm not going to explain to you why you are incorrect. That is your homework assignment for this week.
Please tell me you're not the CEO of ZL by the same name?
I'm not fond of Gartner Mr. Leong, but let's not distort reality with your poor reasoning skills. The following is the complete context of Gartner's argument.
From Section II of Gartner's response to ZL's Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss:
"It is undisputed that an expression of pure opinion is protected by the First Amendment
and may not form the basis for a civil law suit. See Partington, 56 F.3d at 1153. A pure opinion is one that does not imply facts capable of being proved true or false. Id. at 1153 n.10. To determine whether a statement constitutes non-actionable opinion rather than an implied assertion of objective fact, the Ninth Circuit applies a three-part analysis considering (1) whether the general tenor of the entire work negates the impression that the defendant was asserting an objective fact, (2) whether the specific content and context of the statements, including the use of figurative or hyperbolic language, negate the impression of an assertion of fact, and (3) whether the statement in question is susceptible of being proved true or false. Id. at 1153-60; see also Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (same). Applying each somewhat overlapping element of this analysis to the Magic Quadrant reports demonstrates that Gartner?s alleged statements are non-actionable opinion."
Gartner's attorneys continue in subsections A, B and C with a very well-reasoned response.
All other BS and phallus-waving (from both sides) aside...ZL hasn't a legal leg to stand on. People may not like to hear that, and it's not going to earn me any brownie points, but that's reality.
I'm not fond of Gartner Mr. Leong, but let's not distort reality with your poor reasoning skills. The following is the complete context of Gartner's argument.
From Section II of Gartner's response to ZL's Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss:
"It is undisputed that an expression of pure opinion is protected by the First Amendment
and may not form the basis for a civil law suit. See Partington, 56 F.3d at 1153. A pure opinion is one that does not imply facts capable of being proved true or false. Id. at 1153 n.10. To determine whether a statement constitutes non-actionable opinion rather than an implied assertion of objective fact, the Ninth Circuit applies a three-part analysis considering (1) whether the general tenor of the entire work negates the impression that the defendant was asserting an objective fact, (2) whether the specific content and context of the statements, including the use of figurative or hyperbolic language, negate the impression of an assertion of fact, and (3) whether the statement in question is susceptible of being proved true or false. Id. at 1153-60; see also Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (same). Applying each somewhat overlapping element of this analysis to the Magic Quadrant reports demonstrates that Gartner?s alleged statements are non-actionable opinion."
Gartner's attorneys continue in subsections A, B and C with a very well-reasoned response.
All other BS and phallus-waving (from both sides) aside...ZL hasn't a legal leg to stand on. People may not like to hear that, and it's not going to earn me any brownie points, but that's reality.
Dennis,
I've already tackled many of the points discussed in your post elsewhere on the Internet. So I will focus on ZL's beliefs and intent in this comment.
[Note: Before I begin let me say that the terms 'vendor' and 'end-user' create artificial boundaries where none exist. A vendor is nothing more than the sell-side of a company. And a buyer or end-user is nothing more than the buy side of a company. There is nothing more amusing than listening to a Ford, GE, MIT or Warner Brothers IT employee talk about 'those damn lying vendors' as if he does not draw his paycheck from one. Let us not forget how our bread is buttered.]
Now...
Companies large and small (from the IBMs to the ZLs) are a dime a dozen regardless their size. Each of them believing their products to be more innovative, their employees smarter, and their road maps more visionary than those of their competition. They are, after all, drinking their own kool-aid. Everyone else is, in their minds, delusional.
In these days of incredibly complex hardware and software products, much of the analysis - while it may be based on some facts such as speeds and feeds - is largely subjective opinion AND largely contextual.
ZL is pissed off because some group of analysts at the mighty Gartner didn't rank it well in their largely subjective MQ? So what. They are entitled to their opinions. If the product is as innovative as ZL believes it to be, surely other analysts at other firms would/will have a different opinion.
Yes Gartner's opinion differs from ZL's. And, yes Gartner does earn money from the buy- AND sell-side of its clients. What of it? Are we really foolish enough to engage in circumstantial ad hominem reasoning? That's naive and indefensible.
ZL is implying that the MQ is biased solely based on Gartner's revenue sources. The company clearly hopes that disclosure would create enough doubt about MQ among Gartner followers to decrease the MQ's value and perhaps elevate what the company believes to be its own superiority.
[Note: I should mention I could care less about the MQ. I prefer to dig up my own evidence and draw my own conclusions.]
Disclosure aside (and I believe disclosure is a good thing), no matter how we slice it ZL's complaint is nothing more than kool-aid driven smacktalk.
Regarding your new adventure, Enterprise Advocates, I'll reserve my opinion about it until a later date when more information is available. Those who know me well know how I feel about self-branded 'end user' advocates. I often refer to them as wolves in sheep's clothing.
I've already tackled many of the points discussed in your post elsewhere on the Internet. So I will focus on ZL's beliefs and intent in this comment.
[Note: Before I begin let me say that the terms 'vendor' and 'end-user' create artificial boundaries where none exist. A vendor is nothing more than the sell-side of a company. And a buyer or end-user is nothing more than the buy side of a company. There is nothing more amusing than listening to a Ford, GE, MIT or Warner Brothers IT employee talk about 'those damn lying vendors' as if he does not draw his paycheck from one. Let us not forget how our bread is buttered.]
Now...
Companies large and small (from the IBMs to the ZLs) are a dime a dozen regardless their size. Each of them believing their products to be more innovative, their employees smarter, and their road maps more visionary than those of their competition. They are, after all, drinking their own kool-aid. Everyone else is, in their minds, delusional.
In these days of incredibly complex hardware and software products, much of the analysis - while it may be based on some facts such as speeds and feeds - is largely subjective opinion AND largely contextual.
ZL is pissed off because some group of analysts at the mighty Gartner didn't rank it well in their largely subjective MQ? So what. They are entitled to their opinions. If the product is as innovative as ZL believes it to be, surely other analysts at other firms would/will have a different opinion.
Yes Gartner's opinion differs from ZL's. And, yes Gartner does earn money from the buy- AND sell-side of its clients. What of it? Are we really foolish enough to engage in circumstantial ad hominem reasoning? That's naive and indefensible.
ZL is implying that the MQ is biased solely based on Gartner's revenue sources. The company clearly hopes that disclosure would create enough doubt about MQ among Gartner followers to decrease the MQ's value and perhaps elevate what the company believes to be its own superiority.
[Note: I should mention I could care less about the MQ. I prefer to dig up my own evidence and draw my own conclusions.]
Disclosure aside (and I believe disclosure is a good thing), no matter how we slice it ZL's complaint is nothing more than kool-aid driven smacktalk.
Regarding your new adventure, Enterprise Advocates, I'll reserve my opinion about it until a later date when more information is available. Those who know me well know how I feel about self-branded 'end user' advocates. I often refer to them as wolves in sheep's clothing.
@jospehmartins - I don't know you so it would be helpful to have some links to what you are saying so I can understand better what you are saying.
I must say you are describing a world I don't recognize. As someone who has batted for the buyer the last 30+ years, the notion that buyers and sellers are part of the same equation is logical nonsense. To equate IBM and ZL in the same breath is entertaining but ultimately nonsensical. Although I note the IBM and Canonical tie up as an interesting move. Big Shark meets Feeder Fish?
By all means judge Enterprise Advocates by our actions. If we fail to deliver on our promise then we deserve all the flames that get thrown at us. In the meantime - watch this space and feel free to hear what we say the day after tomorrow about SAP maintenance. Need a link then ping me directly - would love to hear your questions.
I must say you are describing a world I don't recognize. As someone who has batted for the buyer the last 30+ years, the notion that buyers and sellers are part of the same equation is logical nonsense. To equate IBM and ZL in the same breath is entertaining but ultimately nonsensical. Although I note the IBM and Canonical tie up as an interesting move. Big Shark meets Feeder Fish?
By all means judge Enterprise Advocates by our actions. If we fail to deliver on our promise then we deserve all the flames that get thrown at us. In the meantime - watch this space and feel free to hear what we say the day after tomorrow about SAP maintenance. Need a link then ping me directly - would love to hear your questions.
Visit StorageMonkeys, Dennis. Those are among my most recent comments. And you'll get an eyeful there.
Like it or not, buyers and sellers ARE part of the same equation. The fact that you refer to it as 'illogical nonsense' is worrisome to say the least. If you're not spelling that out to your clients then you're doing them a disservice. I find that many 'user advocates' advocate that same ill-informed perspective.
Regarding IBM and ZL, suffice to say it is not nonsensical to suggest they both drink heavily of their own kool-aid. I've been listening to, and reading it for years.
I'm not interested in what EA does. What will interest me most is what it doesn't do. Are you prepared to tell your clients what they are very likely not going to want to hear about themselves and their operations? Time will tell.
Like it or not, buyers and sellers ARE part of the same equation. The fact that you refer to it as 'illogical nonsense' is worrisome to say the least. If you're not spelling that out to your clients then you're doing them a disservice. I find that many 'user advocates' advocate that same ill-informed perspective.
Regarding IBM and ZL, suffice to say it is not nonsensical to suggest they both drink heavily of their own kool-aid. I've been listening to, and reading it for years.
I'm not interested in what EA does. What will interest me most is what it doesn't do. Are you prepared to tell your clients what they are very likely not going to want to hear about themselves and their operations? Time will tell.
I've tried to visit StorageMonkeys but it tells me nothing I don't already know. I/(we) act for buyers - end of story. If you have a problem with that then kindly explain why rather than trying to change the topic by skewing implied dishonesty to your own agenda.
If you don't care about EA then fine but kindly restrict your argument to the veracity of the story.
I can tell you as a matter of 30+ years FACT of dealing with buyers/sellers, they are absolutely not part of the same equation as you describe and in any event have nothing to do with the analyst story I have written.
If you have a bone to pick on this then kindly do so on your own web site with links back.
If you don't care about EA then fine but kindly restrict your argument to the veracity of the story.
I can tell you as a matter of 30+ years FACT of dealing with buyers/sellers, they are absolutely not part of the same equation as you describe and in any event have nothing to do with the analyst story I have written.
If you have a bone to pick on this then kindly do so on your own web site with links back.
You use ZDNet, largely a sell-side (aka "vendor") ad financed CNet property, as the medium to publish a very brief mention of ZL v Gartner as a segue into an extended rant attacking Gartner credibility (on the basis of vendor revenue-induced bias no less) and suggesting rampant dishonesty throughout the industry. You then go on to use the opportunity to mention (dare I say promote) yourself and your new venture which, not surprisingly, would compete at some level with Gartner. Lovely.
If I have any agenda at all, it is to highlight hypocrisy at its source, not on another website conveniently distanced from the discussion like a free speech zone at a political rally. Why blog in an open forum if you're not prepared to hear opinions that uncomfortably differ from your own?
As an aside...since you seem to be confused about the relationship with the buy and sell side of business...
Buyers (your 'end users') are funded entirely by their organizations' sellers (the folks in sales and marketing that they love to hate). Like it or not, their agendas are inextricably linked.
Buyers within an organization conveniently choose to overlook that important fact.
They claim to seek honesty, unbiased opinion and facts so long as none of it applies to or harms their own gravy train. It is highly unlikely that you will ever find a DBA within Oracle, or a developer within Microsoft, or an IT manager within Ford who would publicly denounce favorable opinions of their current employers [written by anyone] even if they believe the opinions to be misguided or misleading. Beyond the extremely rare 'whistle blower', they are not out there on the Internet setting the record straight.
Yet they have the audacity to demand greater scrutiny, transparency and honesty from the very same machinery (sales, marketing and the media) of other organizations including their competitors. Heck, they have the same expectations about political machinery not in alignment with their own interests.
It is only when their own organizations, products, services, beliefs and values come under fire that they cry foul.
Nothing less than hypocrisy. Tell me I am wrong, Dennis. Go ahead.
If I have any agenda at all, it is to highlight hypocrisy at its source, not on another website conveniently distanced from the discussion like a free speech zone at a political rally. Why blog in an open forum if you're not prepared to hear opinions that uncomfortably differ from your own?
As an aside...since you seem to be confused about the relationship with the buy and sell side of business...
Buyers (your 'end users') are funded entirely by their organizations' sellers (the folks in sales and marketing that they love to hate). Like it or not, their agendas are inextricably linked.
Buyers within an organization conveniently choose to overlook that important fact.
They claim to seek honesty, unbiased opinion and facts so long as none of it applies to or harms their own gravy train. It is highly unlikely that you will ever find a DBA within Oracle, or a developer within Microsoft, or an IT manager within Ford who would publicly denounce favorable opinions of their current employers [written by anyone] even if they believe the opinions to be misguided or misleading. Beyond the extremely rare 'whistle blower', they are not out there on the Internet setting the record straight.
Yet they have the audacity to demand greater scrutiny, transparency and honesty from the very same machinery (sales, marketing and the media) of other organizations including their competitors. Heck, they have the same expectations about political machinery not in alignment with their own interests.
It is only when their own organizations, products, services, beliefs and values come under fire that they cry foul.
Nothing less than hypocrisy. Tell me I am wrong, Dennis. Go ahead.
I guess the point Dennis is trying to make that when your PRODUCT is selling an OPINION you tend to BLOVIATE for the HIGHEST bidder. No?
If the analyst firm in question were beyond reproach they would be transparently publishing their books. They would also look for FACT and provide FACTUAL Analysis, not OVERRATED OPINIONS.
JP
If the analyst firm in question were beyond reproach they would be transparently publishing their books. They would also look for FACT and provide FACTUAL Analysis, not OVERRATED OPINIONS.
JP
JP,
Tend to?
If I have learned anything about human nature over the past few years, I have learned that psychological projection is rampant in punditry. They 'tend to' project their own undesirable traits onto others.
Regarding your understanding of facts and opinions, I respectfully suggest that you read my comments in the FTC thread on StorageMonkeys.
[Note: StorageMonkeys is not my website. I'm just a free member who has contributed extensively on this subject in recent weeks.]
Although I believe all of my comments are relevant to Dennis's original post, I have decide to write a more detailed response elsewhere. I'll publish the link on Twitter when it is finished.
And Dennis, I do hope you'll find the time to read it. Our disagreement here aside, your thoughts would be appreciated.
Tend to?
If I have learned anything about human nature over the past few years, I have learned that psychological projection is rampant in punditry. They 'tend to' project their own undesirable traits onto others.
Regarding your understanding of facts and opinions, I respectfully suggest that you read my comments in the FTC thread on StorageMonkeys.
[Note: StorageMonkeys is not my website. I'm just a free member who has contributed extensively on this subject in recent weeks.]
Although I believe all of my comments are relevant to Dennis's original post, I have decide to write a more detailed response elsewhere. I'll publish the link on Twitter when it is finished.
And Dennis, I do hope you'll find the time to read it. Our disagreement here aside, your thoughts would be appreciated.
Isn't Dennis' product also an opinion? According to your analysis, with which I can't find any fault, that would mean he would tend to bloviate for the highest bidder.
Let me replace references to Gartner in your comment with references to Dennis:
I guess the point JoeNemo is trying to make that when Dennis' PRODUCT is selling an OPINION Dennis tends to BLOVIATE for the HIGHEST bidder. No?
If Dennis were beyond reproach he would be transparently publishing his books. He would also look for FACT and provide FACTUAL Analysis, not OVERRATED OPINIONS.
Let me replace references to Gartner in your comment with references to Dennis:
I guess the point JoeNemo is trying to make that when Dennis' PRODUCT is selling an OPINION Dennis tends to BLOVIATE for the HIGHEST bidder. No?
If Dennis were beyond reproach he would be transparently publishing his books. He would also look for FACT and provide FACTUAL Analysis, not OVERRATED OPINIONS.
The Magic Quadrant is a special case of what is called a multi-attribute decision model (MADM) that seeks to quantify qualitative things. The problem with the MQ that I have voiced to Gartner several times is that the criteria they use are HIDDEN and VAGUE. If you want people to be able to improve, you need to provide more information about how you are rating them and why. Gartner does not do this, and they argues they are being scientific. This is why I prefer Forrester's Wave and Datamonitor's Decision Matrix. At least they are explicit about their criteria so that you can see what things might need to change to get a different rating.
If you want a good example of how politically motivated the MQ is, look at Microsoft's rating in the leaders quadrant in their most recent MQ on enterprise content management for SharePoint. While SharePoint has it's place in an enterprise, it is poor at most functions that most people would call content management. BUT, it is broadly deployed and has the MS name behind it.
If you want a good example of how politically motivated the MQ is, look at Microsoft's rating in the leaders quadrant in their most recent MQ on enterprise content management for SharePoint. While SharePoint has it's place in an enterprise, it is poor at most functions that most people would call content management. BUT, it is broadly deployed and has the MS name behind it.
And as anyone that has done some engineering an scientific research will tell you, peer review is a part of the process. Your data, your calculations and your conclusions have to match. Otherwise it is just ... not scientific.
It certainly was a huge coincidence that shortly after Informix decided not to pay the big freight to Gartner, their previously wonderful products were suddenly panned in the MQ. Informix stock took a nosedive and then the company was sold to IBM. Many of us in the industry viewed that as direct cause and effect.
Do you have recorded evidence that can be exposed? If so then I'm sure all readers would be interested.
just like we need to force our financial analysts to explain how they get to a conclusion on a stock, the same should go for "Gartners" of the world. Otherwise, what prevents them from doing a pump-and-dump. One MQ you are on top. Sell your stock. Run away. Has anyone looked at Gartner analysts stock buy and sell patterns along with their analyst opinion???
Dennis,
Just for the record, I don't take money from any software vendor that I cover or am likely to cover. Period.
I do, however, have a standing offer for any vendor, from SAP on down (or up). If you want consulting from me, send me a ticket (so I'm not out of pocket), and I'll do it for free. Free. Gratis. Once in the city, I even pay all my own out-of-pocket expenses.
You might think I'd be swamped with requests for my quite humble opinion. You would be entirely wrong. I've been an independent analyst for 8 years, and I've done this exactly three times. (I've also held three free sessions in the city where I happened to be located.)
There are two possible conclusions from this simple fact. One, my consulting is worthless, at least to software vendors. Two, what vendors are paying for, most of the time, when they pay analysts for consulting is not their opinion, but their good will.
The first is, of course, clearly true. It's free and nobody wants it. The second? Well, it doesn't follow, necessarily. It could be that all those people who are willing to be paid have much more valuable opinions than I do, and vendors are willing to pay for them. But it sounds pretty peculiar. If the market for ideas is in any way efficient, you'd think that reasonable ideas at a very low price would still have a market, even if they're arguably inferior.
I used to be a pay-for-play analyst, and I, too, would have said that my opinion is NOT for sale. But I found something interesting, after I quit that line of work. My tone and opinions changed. When I was free to say what I wanted to say, I said different things.
Just for the record, I don't take money from any software vendor that I cover or am likely to cover. Period.
I do, however, have a standing offer for any vendor, from SAP on down (or up). If you want consulting from me, send me a ticket (so I'm not out of pocket), and I'll do it for free. Free. Gratis. Once in the city, I even pay all my own out-of-pocket expenses.
You might think I'd be swamped with requests for my quite humble opinion. You would be entirely wrong. I've been an independent analyst for 8 years, and I've done this exactly three times. (I've also held three free sessions in the city where I happened to be located.)
There are two possible conclusions from this simple fact. One, my consulting is worthless, at least to software vendors. Two, what vendors are paying for, most of the time, when they pay analysts for consulting is not their opinion, but their good will.
The first is, of course, clearly true. It's free and nobody wants it. The second? Well, it doesn't follow, necessarily. It could be that all those people who are willing to be paid have much more valuable opinions than I do, and vendors are willing to pay for them. But it sounds pretty peculiar. If the market for ideas is in any way efficient, you'd think that reasonable ideas at a very low price would still have a market, even if they're arguably inferior.
I used to be a pay-for-play analyst, and I, too, would have said that my opinion is NOT for sale. But I found something interesting, after I quit that line of work. My tone and opinions changed. When I was free to say what I wanted to say, I said different things.
@david: bravo for your honesty. It's a refreshing change and one that needs blowing through the industry. Fact is buyers are tired of hearing the marketing nonsense that pervades this business. Witness the smoke and mirrors stuff surrounding Oracle Fusion Apps: 'available sometime 2010.' Is that 1st Jan or 31st Dec? What are the specificities that apply? Yet still the handwavers glad hand the vendor as offering innovation. BS is what I say. Yet it should be no surprise the vendors find that irritating and choose to exclude 'us' from the real conversations. Will that stop Vinnie, Ray, Frank, Oliver and I? No way.
Hey, Dennis Howlett, aren't you yourself in the dock for (alleged) libel of Kashflow?
My beef with Gartner or any "research" analysis of a technical solution is:
If you're focusing on technology, what does the marketing and sales channel have to do with hard, provable facts?
Gartner's weighting is skewed towards bigger vendors that have inside sales channels. Their products aren't scalable and as being a ZL Customer with over 1.3 billion messages in a single archive, I'd have to say that they deliver above and beyond any of the other products in this field. We prove it everyday, with FACT.
I think when a very large Corporation looks a Gartner's MQ and states "ZL isn't in the Leader's Quadrant, why did you look at them?" I replied that I didn't need Gartner to make the decision of who to look at. Due dilligence is my responsablity; however, others in a large corporation point to things like Gartner and the other firms to challenge what we've proved in labs against 7 other large vendors. Obviously, I am a fan of ZL's technology and their implementation. I am at a loss to explain why they're not rated higher. As I see it true "technical" objectivity isn't a high priority for some of these "research" firms.
JP
If you're focusing on technology, what does the marketing and sales channel have to do with hard, provable facts?
Gartner's weighting is skewed towards bigger vendors that have inside sales channels. Their products aren't scalable and as being a ZL Customer with over 1.3 billion messages in a single archive, I'd have to say that they deliver above and beyond any of the other products in this field. We prove it everyday, with FACT.
I think when a very large Corporation looks a Gartner's MQ and states "ZL isn't in the Leader's Quadrant, why did you look at them?" I replied that I didn't need Gartner to make the decision of who to look at. Due dilligence is my responsablity; however, others in a large corporation point to things like Gartner and the other firms to challenge what we've proved in labs against 7 other large vendors. Obviously, I am a fan of ZL's technology and their implementation. I am at a loss to explain why they're not rated higher. As I see it true "technical" objectivity isn't a high priority for some of these "research" firms.
JP
From the vendor side this is amusing to watch, but bashing Gartner at this point is like bashing the NY Times.
My full take is here: http://bit.ly/1aTjdK
My full take is here: http://bit.ly/1aTjdK
I just got an official response from Gartner: http://www.analystequity.com/?p=1293
From experience in consulting and working in
large
institutions for the last 15 years I've noticed
that
senior management has a tendency, for what ever
reason, to favor analysis from Gartner over
that of
their employees. Perhaps it is due to a need
to
justify the big bucks they pay for the service?
My team was charged with selecting and
implementing an
email archiving solution. After exhaustive
review and
testing of more than ten offerings within the
solution
space ZL came out on top. There were serious
questions
from management on the recommendation due to
the low
placement of ZL on the MQ but, kudos to
management,
they trusted their IT experts.
After a thorough analysis of more than ten of
the
offerings on Gartner's MQ (which included some
of
their top rated ones), customer feedback of the
top
picks along with putting them through their
paces
within a test environment I am baffled at how
ZL is
not somewhere up in the upper right quadrant.
They
were (and still are) innovative, responsive and
had
(have) a desire to be the best which was quite
frankly
missing in the other vendors.
Ignoring the suggestions of vendor influence my
only
explanation of this is that, to Gartner, the
size of
the company; market share; marketing budget;
growth
rate and sales among other non-technical
criteria are
equally weighted in their decision of a
product's
rating. And that is where the problem lies; I
expect
Gartner to tell me what the best of breed
product is
and give me the non-technical information
separately.
Stating that the offering from the large
company who
was the first in the product space, with a
large
market share, and an impressive marketing
budget with
only an average product is the best rated
product is doing their customers a great
disservice.
In reality it is the customer who should be
suing
Gartner, but because of smaller companies'
faith in
Gartner as their IT experts and the bureaucracy
of
larger companies it took a vendor to stand up
and
question their services to bring this to light.
And if you're wondering... with ZL deployed now
for a
few years and with additional user feedback
received
on the MQ high rated products I am absolutely
convinced we selected the best product despite
what
Gartner says.
large
institutions for the last 15 years I've noticed
that
senior management has a tendency, for what ever
reason, to favor analysis from Gartner over
that of
their employees. Perhaps it is due to a need
to
justify the big bucks they pay for the service?
My team was charged with selecting and
implementing an
email archiving solution. After exhaustive
review and
testing of more than ten offerings within the
solution
space ZL came out on top. There were serious
questions
from management on the recommendation due to
the low
placement of ZL on the MQ but, kudos to
management,
they trusted their IT experts.
After a thorough analysis of more than ten of
the
offerings on Gartner's MQ (which included some
of
their top rated ones), customer feedback of the
top
picks along with putting them through their
paces
within a test environment I am baffled at how
ZL is
not somewhere up in the upper right quadrant.
They
were (and still are) innovative, responsive and
had
(have) a desire to be the best which was quite
frankly
missing in the other vendors.
Ignoring the suggestions of vendor influence my
only
explanation of this is that, to Gartner, the
size of
the company; market share; marketing budget;
growth
rate and sales among other non-technical
criteria are
equally weighted in their decision of a
product's
rating. And that is where the problem lies; I
expect
Gartner to tell me what the best of breed
product is
and give me the non-technical information
separately.
Stating that the offering from the large
company who
was the first in the product space, with a
large
market share, and an impressive marketing
budget with
only an average product is the best rated
product is doing their customers a great
disservice.
In reality it is the customer who should be
suing
Gartner, but because of smaller companies'
faith in
Gartner as their IT experts and the bureaucracy
of
larger companies it took a vendor to stand up
and
question their services to bring this to light.
And if you're wondering... with ZL deployed now
for a
few years and with additional user feedback
received
on the MQ high rated products I am absolutely
convinced we selected the best product despite
what
Gartner says.
I found the discussion on the MQ and Gartner's influence to be fascinating. Some of you may find interesting/relevant to the discussion a paper I recently wrote on the Magic Quadrant.
http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/npollock/Magic.pdf
It's neither a critique or defence of the Magic Quadrant but attempts to tackle some of the interesting issues that the MQ seems to raise:
1) the fact it is widely criticised and seen as simplistic but still wields enormous influence (meaning it is a particularly interesting form of knowledge)
2) that it has a certain 'robustness' (i.e., Gartner appear able to defend their views)
3) that it has in some respects changed how IT adopters make decisions and vendors go about developing/selling their solutions
The paper is only a 'partial' study in that it just scratches the surface of this kind of analysis. Most academics in business schools have tended to ignore these kinds of tools/influence, which is obviously a mistake, since this is a very important area. And I think the greater amount of light that can be thrown upon this area will benefit everyone.
I would be very interested to hear views on the paper (good or bad).
http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/npollock/Magic.pdf
It's neither a critique or defence of the Magic Quadrant but attempts to tackle some of the interesting issues that the MQ seems to raise:
1) the fact it is widely criticised and seen as simplistic but still wields enormous influence (meaning it is a particularly interesting form of knowledge)
2) that it has a certain 'robustness' (i.e., Gartner appear able to defend their views)
3) that it has in some respects changed how IT adopters make decisions and vendors go about developing/selling their solutions
The paper is only a 'partial' study in that it just scratches the surface of this kind of analysis. Most academics in business schools have tended to ignore these kinds of tools/influence, which is obviously a mistake, since this is a very important area. And I think the greater amount of light that can be thrown upon this area will benefit everyone.
I would be very interested to hear views on the paper (good or bad).
The paper highlights some very interesting topics. Few things that I think need to be investigated.
- There is a common understanding of what scientific research and publications mean. The fact that you wrote your paper makes me think you understand that process. It is sometimes painful. You have to show your thinking... Gartner gets away with putting out the result, not the data. That is not scientific
- If a company like Gartner has market influence, i.e. if they all of a sudden put IBM / Microsoft / SalesForce in a bad lower left of the MQ, would it impact stock value? If so, should they not be held to any rules that regulate the market, and if they are doing any kind of pay-to-play they should be looked into. After all, pulling stunts like circulating news that certain CEO is dead causes the market authorities, police and others to jump into action... interesting thought.
- There is a common understanding of what scientific research and publications mean. The fact that you wrote your paper makes me think you understand that process. It is sometimes painful. You have to show your thinking... Gartner gets away with putting out the result, not the data. That is not scientific
- If a company like Gartner has market influence, i.e. if they all of a sudden put IBM / Microsoft / SalesForce in a bad lower left of the MQ, would it impact stock value? If so, should they not be held to any rules that regulate the market, and if they are doing any kind of pay-to-play they should be looked into. After all, pulling stunts like circulating news that certain CEO is dead causes the market authorities, police and others to jump into action... interesting thought.
Though I agree that it is likely that the case will be dismissed, I think we need to remember that though Gartner or any other analyst firm is entitled to their opinions, so too are other entitled to sue for libel or slander:
a false and malicious published statement that damages somebody's reputation.
ZL claims just this - if ZL can claim that the Gartner MQ was based on something 'false" and that there may have been malicious intent (according to the papers it seems there was no love lost between the analyst and ZL... then they may have a case for libel..
a false and malicious published statement that damages somebody's reputation.
ZL claims just this - if ZL can claim that the Gartner MQ was based on something 'false" and that there may have been malicious intent (according to the papers it seems there was no love lost between the analyst and ZL... then they may have a case for libel..
I doubt the individual analyst are truly and overtly
influenced by the spend. too much integrity for that. But
no doubt money buys you access, and access is everything
in this game. My take here:
http://marketingglobally.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/gartner
-mq-for-sale/
@ajdun
influenced by the spend. too much integrity for that. But
no doubt money buys you access, and access is everything
in this game. My take here:
http://marketingglobally.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/gartner
-mq-for-sale/
@ajdun
I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate! nccma cooler
I used to be more than happy to seek out this internet-site.I wanted to thanks in your time for this glorious read!! I positively enjoying each little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog post. this thread is amazing i like your work and i appreciate you that you have share a useful stuff thanks for sharing the i shop abatwa
I used to be more than happy to seek out this internet-site.I wanted to thanks in your time for this glorious read!! I positively enjoying each little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog post.Bookmarking now thanks please consider a follow up post. power sa shop
I think the representation of this article is actually superb one. This is my first visit to your site. Thanks a lot and keep sharing the information. Keep updating the information for all of us. Thanks ZDNet Government was launched as the brand's first industry vertical, with a mission to cater to IT professionals in the public secto I agree with your post. However, do you have any sources I can cite for my paper wheel car com bury
Well welcome, hopefully you can become a vital member of the community and really help to push far ahead of google. Which Im sure the development team would love. This will of course earn you alot points too and get you on the leaders board. z d n e t t h a n k Im not sure i come to an agreement with you on every level, howevor it absolutely was a good posting, many thanks for taking the time to put up your ideas.
Thanks nice info z d n e t I really liked your current article write more..let me add you to its favorite The articles you have on zdnet s i t e are always so enjoyable to read. Good work and I bookmarked it.
Fantastic news about the new release.I positively enjoying each little bit of it and I have you b o o k m a r k e d to check out new stuff you weblog post.Im not sure i come to an agreement with you on every level, howevor it absolutely was a good posting, many thanks for taking the time to put up your ideas
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
