Listen to What Analysts Have to Say
The objectivity of industry analysts is something which has long been a subject of debate among many of my colleagues. Having served in a hybrid analyst/consultant/columnist role in my first job out of graduate school, I can say that the majority of analysts mean well. But meaning well and fully trusting them in print is something different. And that's because no major firm in an off-the-record setting would deny that vendors who pay them five, six or sometimes even seven figures for access to their research and consulting time have no influence over their written words (perhaps what they don't say is even more influenced than what they do say).
But what analysts say in print -- which is read by the vendors -- and what they say to practitioners in an advisory capacity -- which obviously is not in print -- when it comes to vendor selection can be two different things. So if you're one of the hundreds of different companies I know which are debating what to do with your entire procure-to-pay strategy now that SAP SRM 6.0 is not going G/A and if you have a relationship with AMR or Gartner -- not to mention the others -- I'd suggest picking up the phone before even reading what they have to say in their writings. Their opinion should count in your thought process (it might even be the decisive factor). But you're not going to get the full story in their written research. On the phone, they might be positive. Or they might be negative. But you're guaranteed to get their complete perspective.
- Jason Busch
TweetBacks
In order to understand what's really going on, you have to have a solid background in the industry, you have to locate and interrogate innovative vendors and practitioners on your own dime, and you have to understand the technology behind products so that you're not buffaloed by marketing spew.
Someday, perhaps, we'll see an analyst firm that hires experts and isn't afraid to call it exactly the way they see it, in print as well as in private. It would be refreshing and different, and I'll bet that firm would gain instant credibility and an instant following. Until then, all we have is the blogosphere.
I know. I was that person.
Jason is right. Analysts are influenced by vendors and it does show more in their writing. We're all influenced by others, be it good or bad. Even conventional wisdom by CPOs is often wrong, so should be just accept their opinions for fact? No. Vendors also create huge innovation, in Procurement software/services and everywhere else, something Procurement folks don't realize enough.
Conversely, even pay-for-play whores add value. There's plenty of corporate business cases that put in Aberdeen figures regardless of their precision, and they educate and create change.
Also, good analysts come from consulting and industry and know how to analyze, do the digging, synthesize, and create insight to help users execute their projects faster and better. They shouldn't be re-tooled magazine writers, but even if they are, they can still add value.
I'd have clients tell me that they got more out of a 1-2 hour session than 8 weeks with a "McBooz&Bainture" type firm.
Net-net: Analysts can be very useful accelerants to corporate users, and they add much more value than rack-n-stack and regurgitating vendor spin (at least the good ones) but their writing can be biased and 'toned down', and Jason makes a good point that the best analysts should be talked to, not just read. The blogs are often more vendor-spin'd than the analysts. Maybe e-sourcing innovation case studies will now start featuring Ariba customers as well as Procuri's? ;-)
Yeah, feel free to do the digging on your own. Ask the hard questions (like a good analyst should). Form your opinions. But good analysts are a useful resource if you can afford it. Blogs are just another resource. But blogs don't paint the whole picture either. Blogs are not advisory services, but collections of opinions, mostly from vendors or at least vendor-sponsored. Good analysts are ultimately business advisors who have not just the supply intelligence, but the experience and insight to help clients weave through their sticky issues that go way beyond technology.
Jason, your point was spot on. To all the corporate user "voyeurs" out there, check to see if you have any analyst relations contracts (check your spend viz tool right?), and get on the phone with them! It's already paid for!
Jason, when's user-submitted FAQ type functionality coming?
You missed my point, which was admittedly ambiguous (I used the indefinite pronoun "you" imprecisely). What I meant was:
"In order to understand what's really going on, [the analyst has] to have a solid background in the industry, [the analyst has] to locate and interrogate innovative vendors and practitioners on [his] own dime, and [the analyst] has to understand the technology behind products so that [the analyst] is not buffaloed by marketing spew."
I'm afraid that the picture I see, for the most part, is analysts who are easily taken in by marketing pitches, who are unaware of new technical developments (and unable to evaluate them when they are aware of them), and who are largely ignorant of leading edge procurement thinking.
I don't see the same magnitude problem in the blogosphere at all. I see a lot critical analysis and a good dose of solid technical competence. I see mistakes, too -- and some chest-thumping from time to time by blogs that everybody knows are company organs -- but the information sure is refreshing and a lot more useful compared to the homogenized pap that comes out of the analysts firms.