Gartner

Putting All Your UC Eggs in One Basket

It seems like just yesterday I was questioning the validity and value of the Gartner Magic Quadrant. My own opinion aside, executives and customers still value the information, and there aren’t many alternative sources of information so we are left discussing the Magic Quadrant out of necessity.

So, let’s dive a little deeper into the recent Unified Communications Magic Quadrant.  Bern Elliot, a vice president and senior analyst at Gartner, and co-author of the UC Magic Quadrant noted “The vendors would like to broaden the footprint they have within their existing customers and expand into new markets, whereas users, in many cases, would like to have the vendors interoperate effectively so they can get a high degree of functionality, and preserve and migrate their existing investments.”

Bottom line, it is Elliot’s opinion that the major vendors are fighting to be the whole pie, but that customers gain more benefit from a buffet or cafeteria approach combining different vendor components and leveraging existing hardware/software investments.

Toward that end, Elliot suggests that vendors focus more on interoperability and playing well with others and less on trying to dominate and be the all-in-one end-to-end solution. Fair enough. I will extend that concept by saying that, among the major vendors, I believe Microsoft provides the superior balance betwen delivering an innovative and comprehensice unified communications experience, while integrating well with a variety of platforms and enabling customers to integrate Microsoft offerings with existing communications investments.

Disappearing Value of the Magic Quadrant

The media likes to quote analysts and survey reports, but do reports like the Gartner Magic Quadrant provide any useful information for customers?

I have thought for some time that organizations like Gartner, Forrester, and others have an inflated view of their self-worth. The analysts prognosticate based on trends and circumstantial evidence and the industry in question is expected to react to the analyst statements and predictions.

To the extent that customers actually accept the analyst reports as credible information they become self-fulfilling prophecies. Customers who have never heard of ACME Unified Communications (don’t check the Magic Quadrant- I made it up) are more likely to purchase products or services from it if it is ranked prominently in the Magic Quadrant, thereby justifying its rank in the Magic Quadrant after the fact.

A blog post I read recently drilled even deeper to explore the value of the Magic Quadrant.  The blog post points out that ”unified communications as an industry is fueled by, driven by, and revenue generated by a set of companies Gartner just never sees. Just as small and mid-sized business drive much (I believe most) of our economy, they drive much (or most) of this industry. Where’s Truphone? MaxROAM? Calliflower? Tungle? IfbyPhone? Junction Networks? Voxeo? Jaduka?”

It seems like the Magic Quadrant is little more than marketing fodder for the companies fortunate enough to make the Magic Quadrant. It gives vendors recognition to quote in marketing collateral and media (such as me) a convenient source of (allegedly) credible data to quote from, but seems to offer little in the way of true value for customers trying to understand the products and services available in a given industry.

What do you think? Do analyst reports like the Gartner Magic Quadrant have any value? Do you use them in making vendor / purchasing decisions? If not, are there other sources you consider more credible and reliable that would recommend instead?

Microsoft and the ‘Magic Quadrant’

Those who follow technology trends in business are probably familiar with the coveted Gartner Magic Quadrants. What has shocked many in the communications arena is that Gartner recently added a new player to their Magic Quadrant for corporate telephony- Microsoft. Microsoft is well known in many arenas, but corporate telephony has typically been reserved for players like Avaya, Nortel, Cisco, etc. Part of the reason for Microsoft’s inclusion may come down to this statement from Gartner: “Although companies are still deploying PBX and IP Telephony, most should make the decision in the context of a broader unified communications strategy.” For more about the Gartner report, take a look at this story from NoJitter.com.

Enterprises Intimidated by UC Complexity?

A recent report from Gartner suggested that one of the biggest complaints from early adopters of unified communications (UC) technologies is the lack of standards and interoperability. A recent study by Infonetics Research suggests a slightly different obstacle to adopting UC technologies - they are intimidated by the complexity of UC and concerned about product integration. I don’t necessarily agree. Certainly, at this early stage, there is progress to be made on integration and interoperability. However, I think there is a general lack of education and understanding about how to approach unified communications. The beauty of most UC solutions today is that they can be implemented using a modular approach that lets enterprises leverage their existing infrastructure, and allows them to wade in to UC rather than diving into the deep end. Organizations that are concerned about having to ditch their PBX infrastructure and start over at square one should take a look at some of the training seminars being offered by Evangelyze. A small investment in training such as The Business Value of Unified Communications, or Understanding Unified Communications Telephony can help to provide a better understanding of unified communications technologies and benefits and remove the intimidation factor.