Comments on: Disappearing Value of the Magic Quadrant http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/connectivity/disappearing-value-of-the-magic-quadrant/ News and information about Unified Communications Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:37:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Stiennon http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/connectivity/disappearing-value-of-the-magic-quadrant/#comment-63 Stiennon Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:57:45 +0000 http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/connectivity/disappearing-value-of-the-magic-quadrant/#comment-63 You said : "The analysts prognosticate based on trends and circumstantial evidence ". Is there something else they should use to prognosticate? Seems to me that trends and circumstantial evidence are pretty good ingredients for making forecasts. Sure, an analyst firm can miss something. So called Unified Communications is after all not a technology but a combination of technologies so little companies that appeal to small to medium early adapters might not catch the attention of a big analyst firm. Luckily there are about 450 smaller firms that keep an eye out for these new trends. A typical contract an analyst firm can cost tens of thousands of dollars so almost by definition you are going to get mostly (80%) late adapter types signing up for it. They want to know SAP or Oracle? Not Tumblr or Blogger. So, yes, Gartner Magic Quadrants do serve a purpose. You are the one who gives them too much credit if you think an MQ makes or breaks a vendor. It has been five years since I was responsible for writing a couple of MQs and I understand the process has become very standardized. The MQ's have become somewhat less dynamic than they used to be but still serve their purpose: Identity the players in a space, and winnow down the selection from dozens to a few. You said : “The analysts prognosticate based on trends and circumstantial evidence “. Is there something else they should use to prognosticate? Seems to me that trends and circumstantial evidence are pretty good ingredients for making forecasts.

Sure, an analyst firm can miss something. So called Unified Communications is after all not a technology but a combination of technologies so little companies that appeal to small to medium early adapters might not catch the attention of a big analyst firm. Luckily there are about 450 smaller firms that keep an eye out for these new trends.

A typical contract an analyst firm can cost tens of thousands of dollars so almost by definition you are going to get mostly (80%) late adapter types signing up for it. They want to know SAP or Oracle? Not Tumblr or Blogger.

So, yes, Gartner Magic Quadrants do serve a purpose. You are the one who gives them too much credit if you think an MQ makes or breaks a vendor. It has been five years since I was responsible for writing a couple of MQs and I understand the process has become very standardized. The MQ’s have become somewhat less dynamic than they used to be but still serve their purpose: Identity the players in a space, and winnow down the selection from dozens to a few.

]]>