A Gartner Sourcing Suite Surprise

Posted At : April 21, 2008 7:42 AM
Related Categories: Spend Management

Gartner's latest Magic Quadrant for Sourcing Application Suites (subscription or $1995 required -- which works out to roughly eighty seven bucks a page) came out last week. Having looked at it, I must say that the relative rankings of smaller vendors -- in proportion to those in the Leader's Quadrant -- takes away from its overall credibility. Granted, it's no surprise that folks like Emptoris came out on top (followed by Ariba), but the relative ranking of the secondary vendors relative to the larger ones is more than a surprise -- it's a shocker. And to me it detracts from the overall credibility of the report. I simply can't understand why there are two vendors who I rarely see in deals significantly out rank the Leader's ability to execute (not just by a thread, but by a significant margin). Or I could also point to how one ERP provider's "Completeness of Vision” is as great -- or greater -- than those in the Leader's quadrant, but then I'd have to miss a blog publication deadline or two (or maybe just stop publishing this thing for a year). Just kidding. But what's my true take? An analyst firm can never win publishing a head-to-head comparison as someone will always bitch and moan about the results as I'm sure Debbie Wilson, the lead author of the report, is finding out. But Gartner, in my view, has taken its credibility down a notch in the market with this analysis.

- Jason Busch

Posted By : Jason Busch | Comments (11) | Send | del.icio.us | Linking Blogs

Comments

[Add Comment]

I have worked in the vendor world for most of my life and part as a user. Reading these reports I find the largest challenge is that analysts convince themselves that they are following an "objective" analysis path based on ranking critera. It is only as objective as the motives behind them and what vendors are willing to share (or twist). I have seen this report and to say that GlobaleProcure has a better ability to execute that SAP, Emptoris, Bravo, Oracle and everyone else is wishful thinking at best. Yes, they might very well be a good vendor, but where they are at the top of the chart for that axis is just plain lunacy (but I must say that Debbie's picture looks good on the Gartner "Videocast" that they must have paid handsomely for on their homepage).

# Posted By speak quietly | 4/21/08 9:14 AM

Gartner insiders have confessed to me that they *HATE* doing the quadrant. It's just not very useful, and it causes all sorts of trouble for analysts, their end-user clients, and their vendor clients.

Perhaps Debbie was trying to point out that she doesn't see much difference between the leaders and the followers in terms of delivery, which is actually an interesting way of delivering a negative commentary on the whole space. Or maybe her message was, "please ignore this quadrant nonsense, because the message is simply too complex to be conveyed in a silly-ass 2x2 matrix."

In either case, I agree with her.

# Posted By Magic Quadrant Wave Whatever | 4/21/08 11:16 AM

I'm surprised to learn this magic quadrant is done every 3 years. Seems like a lot of changes happen in this space in 3 years. It would be interesting to see a graphic that overlays the 2001 (was there a 2001 quadrant?), 2004, and 2007 charts. Or a flash graphic that shows the movement. Some companies would move off the chart, some would merge with other companies, and the strengths should be moving NW, right? Maybe something like this: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/92

# Posted By Mike O. | 4/21/08 6:52 PM

I am sure Global eProcure, aka Dollar General of esourcing can execute, who else but them can provide cheap sourcing services through their Indian operations. While this 99 cents an hour service plan will have a lot of takers, I seriously wonder if they have a software product at all. The only win that they have announced in last few years is Provimi, which I guess is a Belgium based company.

# Posted By All for Dollar General! | 4/22/08 12:45 AM

Should a company make a technology decision based solely on one analyst report? No. However, do analyst vendor rankings provide useful information for this company? Of course. A company considering a major technology investment should use reports like this as part of a toolkit in their selection process. Points to consider include the following: what has the trend been among vendors over time within the Magic Quadrant? Is this the first time a vendor has appeared, or has the vendor shown consistent presence and improvement over a period of years? What criteria are considered that make a vendor a leader - is it based on low price delivery models, superior service execution, unique commodity expertise, or innovative and heavy weight functionality? It is important to understand that there can be many reasons for garnishing the leader status, but rarely do two vendors become a leader for the same reasons. Finally, how has this vendor performed in other analysts evaluations (e.g., The Forrester Wave, AMR surveys). If multiple analysts reach similar conclusions, then companies can feel more secure in the conclusions drawn.

Kevin Potts
Vice President of Marketing
www.emptoris.com

# Posted By Kevin Potts | 4/22/08 3:06 AM

I'm all for dollar stores, but I'd sooner bet on a Wal-Mart to execute than it's low rent neighbor (if I were a customer or shareholder). It all comes down to relative ranking and there is nothing wrong with GlobaleProcure or any of the other vendors in the report. I just can't believe that any rationale person could look at the vendors who made the final rankings and say that a bunch of no-names who rarely make it into deals can out execute the big dogs -- or that SAP and Oracle are as or more visionary than the Leaders. No way. Perhaps the second commenter is right -- this is Debbie's way of thumbing her nose at the constraints of a 2/2. That's all I can think of at this point.

# Posted By Jason Busch | 4/22/08 5:18 AM

Perhaps the biggest disappointment is how little Ariba has done, given the significant lead they held in this market. Looking at the 2005 Quadrant, one would have expected Ariba to maintain its lead and to pull away from the pack.

However, in this three year time-frame they've held static in solution offerings and customer impact. The stasis has allowed SAP, Oracle, and smaller vendors to catchup in various forms. Interestingly, in terms of market leadership, they've now been leapfrogged by Emptoris who was in the middle of the pack just three years back.

The precision of the vendor ratings may be debatable, but at a macro level there are some very interesting observations within this report.

# Posted By Observant | 4/22/08 2:57 PM

About the Gartner Magic Quadrant

The Magic Quadrant is copyrighted April 2008 by Gartner, Inc. and is reused with permission. The Magic Quadrant is a graphical representation of a marketplace at and for a specific time period. It depicts Gartner's analysis of how certain vendors measure against criteria for that marketplace, as defined by Gartner. Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in the Magic Quadrant, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors placed in the "Leaders" quadrant. The Magic Quadrant is intended solely as a research tool, and is not meant to be a specific guide to action. Gartner disclaims all warranties, express or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

Yes, maybe this report was a rebellious thumbing of the nose at 'the man' or maybe this exercise was just alot harder than compiling lists, what the analyst was doing before gartner as I recall... Yikes, The Magic Quadrant has No Clothes

# Posted By It's not a guide... | 4/22/08 10:20 PM

Here's another thought. Shouldn't tech analysts be tech analysts? If I wanted to hire someone to conduct a financial and business analysis about a company (which is given a "high" importance under "ability to execute" as part of business unit strategy, financial strategy, organization, etc. in the report) I'd go to an i-bank or boutique financial analysis shop. Now, perhaps these are important in a decision process, but Debbie nor anyone else I know at Gartner is as qualified as finance geeks to make these types of calls (not to mention the fact that the vendors could have easily submitted bunk numbers).

Above all, we all need to realize that even though Gartner's and Debbie's intentions might have been harmless with this little 2/2 exercise -- and perhaps a bit of nose thumbing in part, too -- the MQ does matter in the market. And with that comes responsibility -- which in my view is clearly lacking in parts of this analysis. Indeed, what should be a piece that Emptoris and Ariba should be able to rightly use and claim victory on (Emptoris especially), is so outlandish in other areas as to discredit the two leaders who deserve more.

# Posted By Jason Busch | 4/23/08 6:25 AM

The above comments are very interesting. For all the smarty pants product marketing whiz kids above (and you know which ones I am referring to), stop bottom feeding on trash, rise and shine, look out and see how the world is changing. Just because you pay to influence one pathetic blogger, it does not mean everyone is up for sale. And even if they are, who asked you to bid low?

When you start discrediting your competition, maybe you are not doing your own homework. So wake up and smell the coffee. A new breed of leaders is slowly but surely working their way up.

NOTE: THIS COMMENT ORIGINALLY CONTAINED A LINK TO A VENDOR WEBSITE. THE VENDOR CONTACTED SPEND MATTERS AND NOTIFIED US THIS COMMENT DID NOT ORIGINATE FROM THEIR IP ADDRESS, SO WE HAVE REMOVED THE LINK.

# Posted By Clear Conscience | 4/23/08 7:48 AM

That you for referring to me as pathetic ... I sometimes feel that way, no doubt. But regarding influence and blogs, I simply won't go there, as I've written about it far too many times. Unlike all of the analysts and journalists, I -- along with Michael Lamoureux -- have decided to have a disclosure listing all of our relationships on our blogs (see the right hand column). Sponsorship and consulting dollars don't mean anything here from a coverage, praise or criticism standpoint. I'd sooner walk from a relationship permanently -- and I told one sponsor so much the other week -- than let anyone think they have any added influence on this thing because of a commercial relationship. No way.

# Posted By Jason Busch | 4/23/08 7:55 AM

[Add Comment]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31