Spend Matters Suggests Caution in Reading Gartner's Procurement/Sourcing Comparative Vendor Rankings
Based on our analysis of the research process undertaken by Gartner for its strategic sourcing magic quadrant, a lack of transparency into the overall placement process for the same analysis, a recent presentation that contained numerous inconsistencies / mistakes and a general perception among other analysts, consultants and providers of Gartner's misinterpretation of what certain vendors are capable / not capable of, Spend Matters is urging that readers consider Gartner's comparative vendor recommendations in the procurement and sourcing sector with caution. We believe that the above body of evidence is potentially suggestive of a lack of consistency, rigor and careful attention to detail that is necessary to make conclusive and accurate comparative vendor recommendations and shortlists.
In lieu of using Gartner as a source for accurate information in this sector to develop shortlists of providers, we would encourage Spend Matters readers to consider other sources of information and analysis. These include: Gartner's own AMR Research (overall), Forrester (services procurement, P2P and related areas), TEC, ChainLink Research as well as independent analysts, and especially systems integration / consulting firms with deep implementation experience. In addition, blogs such as Spend Matters, Sourcing Innovation, and Supply Chain Matters can offer a useful perspective on emerging technology trends as well (and some of their authors, including Bob Ferrari of Supply Chain Matters and Michael Lamoureux of Sourcing Innovation, also offer analyst services). Spend Matters also believes that many of the BPO providers are developing a strong perspective of enterprise procurement and sourcing technology, and are therefore capable of offering an informed perspective.
Gartner clients should still consider the firm as a source of information on general sector technology insights within the procurement and sourcing sector and most certainly the broad spectrum of technology research coverage for which they are deservedly well known and respected. But until Gartner begins to show more attention to detail and thoroughness in research processes and client / conference presentation material, Spend Matters suggests that readers who share our perspective should consider other sources of information for comparative vendor rankings and shortlists. This suggestion does not apply to AMR Research clients, a firm owned by Gartner that we continue to believe provides among the most highly researched, accurate and thorough vendor recommendations in the market, especially in the sourcing area for which Gartner (and AMR Research, separately) recently undertook a comparative vendor analysis.
TweetBacks
Seriously, you are petty and it appears you have a personal 'beef' against Debbie. It is one thing to call her out for the content of her slides but quite another to discuss periods and bullet points.
Did you not like her outfit?
Also, I have nothing against analysts in general. There are some (like Debbie's colleague, Mickey North Rizza) that I respect on many, many levels, both as a professional and as an analyst.
Regarding Debbie, something clearly happened at Gartner. And it's a disservice to the market to let shoddy research methods, opaque decision weightings and criteria and very poor attention to detail hide behind a larger research brand. Is it petty to call all of this out when millions of dollars of software contracts are on the line and Gartner's recommendation counts? I don't think so.
Moreover, we're not just talking about the odd typo in the presentation she gave last week. There were too many mistakes to count.
Step back a minute as well ...
In her last MQ, Debbie did not look at vendor demonstrations. Ask yourself: how they heck can anyone comparatively rank providers if you do not spend a few hours with each digging into the toolset yourself?
The situation last week is further evidence in my book that everyone who would consider Gartner comparative rankings in this area needs to be aware of the practices and personalities that went into creating them. That's all.
Ask yourself: If Gartner hold vendors accountable, who is to hold Gartner accountable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_...
If you go back and read the post, I also suggest:
- AMR
- Forrester (selectively)
- TEC
- ChainLink
... and many independents, SIs, BPOs, etc.
2. I've also been pitched by bloggers, including this one, both for sponsorship and for sponsored research. In my experience there are no promises and no sleazy implications around paying for attention and mention.
Just one person's experience.
I would encourage you to download our research and see what you think. If you don't want to download, drop me a line, and I'll happily send you some. Would like your honest view. Thanks.
Too many analysts don't do their homework. I can't comment on this instance, since I am not a procurement expert, but I know the 'analyst' game all too well.
I thought that was a blogger's role? After all, I can't remember the last time a big "analyst" firm actually did this ... especially when you add the caveat that you don't pick winners and losers ... isn't that what the Grave and Tragic Quadrant are all about?
Have I been doing the wrong thing for the last four years? I'm confused! ;-)