4 ms·

Is there a better corporate insights and research firm that you know of? Their trends seem dated because they're not going to feed enterprises bleeding edge te

by chomp 8y ago

Is there a better corporate insights and research firm that you know of? Their trends seem dated because they're not going to feed enterprises bleeding edge tech trends; they're going to go with trends that are mostly proven, so yes at that point they're probably going to be a bit stale. Large enterprises with minimal tech advocacy/leadership in the senior leadership team eat this stuff up because they don't know much better. Frankly, if your business is struggling with operations to a point where they are bringing in third parties to get told to outsource operations, I feel like your business has a competency problem that you can't place squarely on the shoulders of Gartner.

tamersalama 8y ago
> Their trends seem dated because they're not going to feed enterprises bleeding edge tech trends Not to derail your points; but their trends publication included a framework that is no longer supported. It could’ve taken an intern one minute to update.
dplgk 8y ago
So basically Gartner is there to gobble up money from incompetence.
- Kalium 8y ago
  You could look at it that way! Some might describe Gartner as a company that dispenses reasonable advice on demand to companies who need guidance on subjects well outside their core competencies. This is very much making money from incompetence, but it's the sort of profiting from incompetence that every expert adviser does.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - goatherders 8y ago
    Well said, although I would trade "ignorance" for "incompetance." People in business have to regularly make decisions outside of their comfort zone. That means they often start as ignorant, not incompetent. As for the thread at hand, I second the answer that Gartner exists to provide executives a backstop of something goes wrong. People dont often get fired for buying something in the magic quadrant.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  They are a consultant like any other. End of the day they are best used as a tool to use as part of a procurement or strategy making process. Being able to talk to someone with some clue and have access to generally well thought out papers is useful. If you’re an SME in an area, they may give you additional perspective. If you just read the Magic Quadrant for Business Process outsourcing or whatever and just call the top one, you are dumb. Conversely, if you’re going to be making a purchase in the space, and have never heard of 2/5 vendors on the top right, you may be missing something.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  All of capitalism is making money on incompetence (which you might lazily use to lump in lack of information on the part of a party in a transaction).
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- monkeydreams 8y ago
  In the same way that the supermarket is there to gobble money up from your inability to grow your own vegetables, mix up your own detergents, manufacture your own batteries, etc.
  - indogooner 8y ago
    That is a wrong analogy. If you are a retailer competing with Amazon you should be building a competent tech team in-house with some external help if need be rather than relying on fuzzy reports to choose vendors. This is a quick-fix and makes it easier for vendors to fool you (knowing you have no tech competence). Don't reinvent everything but at least be competent enough to choose which supermarket to go to, which veggies to eat, which detergent/battery to use.
    - goatherders 8y ago
      I disagree with your entire post. If you are a retailer competing with Amazon then the cost of building a competent tech team in house will bankrupt you. And if you are a retailer competing with Amazon you need a LOT of insight from the market to find ways to compete. It's almost impossible to hire that insight in a reasonable time frame but very possible to find consultants who can help.
    - monkeydreams 8y ago
      This is a question of comparative specialisation. Why learn how to grow an amazing garden, invest hundreds of hours in working that garden, to save a few hundred dollars (and losing the opportunity to earn tens of thousands of dollars) if you can just go to supermarket and buy food? Why hire a strategic analyst with executive experience for 5 years if all they are going to tell you is 5% more than a Gartner consultant can offer you for 1/10th the annual salary? To use your analogy, why should this hypothetical retailer hire an in-house team if they can get everything they need from another party for cheaper, with a small opportunity cost? And why is knowing which detergent to purchase making you any less reliant on the comparative specialisation of the supermarket?
- johannes1234321 8y ago
  It is a business choice: rely on external people who do research all day or try to invest your own time. The question is: What's your core business?
adrr 8y ago
This is the most correct answer. If you're Bob's Widget factory looking to upgrade your ERP, WMS, HR management system and have limited technical knowledge, where do you look to get the insight on the variety of choices? A semi-informed decision is better than just believing the salespeople. Most software/systems in the magic quadrant aren't bad choices.
- mikekchar 8y ago
  > A semi-informed decision is better than just believing the salespeople. I think the siblings post (Gartner exists to gobble up money from incompetence) is closer to home. A semi-informed decision really isn't better. I'm not saying that making your decisions based on marketing hype is a good idea, by any stretch (which is what salespeople and marketing people will base their decision on usually). But outside consultants are really dangerous because they are targets (if not willing participants) in orchestrated attacks against your company. At best they will be trying to extract hundreds of thousands of dollars from you. At worst they will be trying to sink you deliberately. If you go with your salespeople's recommendation, the worst you will get is a bad ERP, WMS, or HR management system. A management consultant can cripple your operations if you follow their advice blindly. You may think that hard to believe, but I've lived through it enough times to be doubly cautious.
hbcondo714 8y ago
Forrester Research[1] is a competitive alternative to Gartner but I think the OP is asking about research firms in general, not specifically Gartner. [1] https://go.forrester.com/ https://go.forrester.com/
techpop10 8y ago
451 Research does VERY good research and they fully disclose exactly how many respondents, their size and other relevant demographics of their research. You will NEVER see Gartner disclose how they conduct their research and the demographics. You just have to take their word for it.

by chomp 8y ago

tamersalama 8y ago

> Their trends seem dated because they're not going to feed enterprises bleeding edge tech trends Not to derail your points; but their trends publication included a framework that is no longer supported. It could’ve taken an intern one minute to update.

dplgk 8y ago

So basically Gartner is there to gobble up money from incompetence.

Kalium 8y ago
You could look at it that way! Some might describe Gartner as a company that dispenses reasonable advice on demand to companies who need guidance on subjects well outside their core competencies. This is very much making money from incompetence, but it's the sort of profiting from incompetence that every expert adviser does.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- goatherders 8y ago
  Well said, although I would trade "ignorance" for "incompetance." People in business have to regularly make decisions outside of their comfort zone. That means they often start as ignorant, not incompetent. As for the thread at hand, I second the answer that Gartner exists to provide executives a backstop of something goes wrong. People dont often get fired for buying something in the magic quadrant.
Spooky23 8y ago
They are a consultant like any other. End of the day they are best used as a tool to use as part of a procurement or strategy making process. Being able to talk to someone with some clue and have access to generally well thought out papers is useful. If you’re an SME in an area, they may give you additional perspective. If you just read the Magic Quadrant for Business Process outsourcing or whatever and just call the top one, you are dumb. Conversely, if you’re going to be making a purchase in the space, and have never heard of 2/5 vendors on the top right, you may be missing something.
toomuchtodo 8y ago
All of capitalism is making money on incompetence (which you might lazily use to lump in lack of information on the part of a party in a transaction).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
monkeydreams 8y ago
In the same way that the supermarket is there to gobble money up from your inability to grow your own vegetables, mix up your own detergents, manufacture your own batteries, etc.
- indogooner 8y ago
  That is a wrong analogy. If you are a retailer competing with Amazon you should be building a competent tech team in-house with some external help if need be rather than relying on fuzzy reports to choose vendors. This is a quick-fix and makes it easier for vendors to fool you (knowing you have no tech competence). Don't reinvent everything but at least be competent enough to choose which supermarket to go to, which veggies to eat, which detergent/battery to use.
  - goatherders 8y ago
    I disagree with your entire post. If you are a retailer competing with Amazon then the cost of building a competent tech team in house will bankrupt you. And if you are a retailer competing with Amazon you need a LOT of insight from the market to find ways to compete. It's almost impossible to hire that insight in a reasonable time frame but very possible to find consultants who can help.
  - monkeydreams 8y ago
    This is a question of comparative specialisation. Why learn how to grow an amazing garden, invest hundreds of hours in working that garden, to save a few hundred dollars (and losing the opportunity to earn tens of thousands of dollars) if you can just go to supermarket and buy food? Why hire a strategic analyst with executive experience for 5 years if all they are going to tell you is 5% more than a Gartner consultant can offer you for 1/10th the annual salary? To use your analogy, why should this hypothetical retailer hire an in-house team if they can get everything they need from another party for cheaper, with a small opportunity cost? And why is knowing which detergent to purchase making you any less reliant on the comparative specialisation of the supermarket?
johannes1234321 8y ago
It is a business choice: rely on external people who do research all day or try to invest your own time. The question is: What's your core business?

adrr 8y ago

This is the most correct answer. If you're Bob's Widget factory looking to upgrade your ERP, WMS, HR management system and have limited technical knowledge, where do you look to get the insight on the variety of choices? A semi-informed decision is better than just believing the salespeople. Most software/systems in the magic quadrant aren't bad choices.

mikekchar 8y ago
> A semi-informed decision is better than just believing the salespeople. I think the siblings post (Gartner exists to gobble up money from incompetence) is closer to home. A semi-informed decision really isn't better. I'm not saying that making your decisions based on marketing hype is a good idea, by any stretch (which is what salespeople and marketing people will base their decision on usually). But outside consultants are really dangerous because they are targets (if not willing participants) in orchestrated attacks against your company. At best they will be trying to extract hundreds of thousands of dollars from you. At worst they will be trying to sink you deliberately. If you go with your salespeople's recommendation, the worst you will get is a bad ERP, WMS, or HR management system. A management consultant can cripple your operations if you follow their advice blindly. You may think that hard to believe, but I've lived through it enough times to be doubly cautious.

hbcondo714 8y ago

Forrester Research[1] is a competitive alternative to Gartner but I think the OP is asking about research firms in general, not specifically Gartner. [1] https://go.forrester.com/ https://go.forrester.com/

techpop10 8y ago

451 Research does VERY good research and they fully disclose exactly how many respondents, their size and other relevant demographics of their research. You will NEVER see Gartner disclose how they conduct their research and the demographics. You just have to take their word for it.