And don't forget the complex process of wining and dining which I've heard takes place. I think that part should be added to the blog post as well. ;)
Analyst group Gartner has detailed how it prepares its sometimes-controversial magic quadrants, revealing that a two-hour demo is sometimes part of the research process. Gartner already offers a detailed explanation of how it compiles its Magic Quadrants here. But in an exchange with governance, risk management and compliance …
Tuesday 16th October 2012 08:21 GMT theopriestley
I don't think it was just his blog that caused this....
There's been many more about other Tragic Quadrant reports. This year Gartner has faced a major backlash from some big vendors.
Tuesday 16th October 2012 08:21 GMT AllAheadFull
Interesting article, but does expalin what I have thought around reading their data if you go beyond just looking at the pictures, their research data is often wrong, and does not go into enough detail, and of course, as the previous poster mentions, that is no mention of the out of hours conversations.....
Tuesday 16th October 2012 08:34 GMT xyz
Tuesday 16th October 2012 08:41 GMT Robert Ramsay
Tuesday 16th October 2012 08:52 GMT Ken Hagan
Tuesday 16th October 2012 08:55 GMT Pinkerton
Gartner: Making vendors add nonsense to software...
Much like the news media should be reporting the news rather than controlling it, Gartner should be reporting innovation rather than controlling it. Neither of these cases are true, obviously.
Was once on a training course for some complex product or other and on some configuration sections we skipped over important-looking parameters with the instructor saying, "You can ignore that - it's just there to keep Gartner happy - nobody will use it in the real world".
I was left wondering what was left out so that could be put in - or left out as Gartner didn't deem it important.
Well done Gartner.
Tuesday 16th October 2012 10:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
I'm always amused in these threads by people who are convinced that they know how Gartner works, or what their consultants do or don't know, despite never having had any apparent contact with the analysts.
I'm no fan of Gartner, but frankly, most of the critics in this thread are guilty of "I don't like what they said, therefore their methods must be rubbish".
Tuesday 16th October 2012 11:38 GMT Stretch
Tuesday 16th October 2012 11:45 GMT Thesheep
Tuesday 16th October 2012 13:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
Naive software vendor; silly discussion
This is funny. The entire software vendor's discussion is about the rigidity of the demo they provide to Gartner. Pretty naive. They're confusing Garter with another consulting firm, perhaps Forrester, that actually looks at products carefully.
It's easy to prove that Gartner doesn't: look at the X and Y axes of the Magic Quadrant charts. They're "Completeness of Vision" and "Ability to Execute" last time I checked. Notice that neither of those axes has to do with the completeness of the currently shipping solution? Nope. That's not a big part of the equation.
So if some vendor with deep pockets can show an impressive deck of slides with their "vision" they can get the top spot quite simply. They have a complete vision, and they have the cash to make it happen (whether they have the desire, will or competence to carry it out is a separate question, as is the completeness of the currently shipping product).