More on the Gartner Ombudsman...
Firstly, thanks to James Governor already for digging the definition for us in his post.
In another interesting post, Joe Guralnick concludes that you can't leave this role to the Gartner Borg and that the industry needs a 3rd party regulator, somewhat like the SEC or the FSA (but hopefully better than the FDA). Many analysts question privately why the assimilation of META by the borgs did not give rise to an anti-trust investigation!
And finally, just a precision on ARpro's post: in fact the department dealing with vendors (aka technology suppliers in borg-speak, as according to Gene's kids a "vendor" is one selling food at baseballs matches) is called "vendor relations" (or maybe supplier relations, gives you an idea of how friendly in negotiation they are).
So we have the Gartner copyright police on one side and the other Ombudsman, to which Gartner gives an entirely new meaning -their role is to protect their independence (including from Silverlake?) rather than being "someone one that investigates reported complaints [...], reports findings, and helps to achieve equitable settlements" (Merriam-Webster). Looks like Gartner leaves vendors between a rock and a hard place. We agree with James' advice to Gartner: "You guys need to get easier to work with, not harder."
Read also our previous post on the subject: Gartner Ombudsman Strives for Control
Monday, 27 June 2005
Ombudsman -redux
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As I understand it, the SEC did investigate the META-Gartner merger (and did not prevent it). A key element here is sizing the market, because it's the market share and degree of supplier concentration that the SEC will worry about, rather than the size of the business in itself. Last year Gartner was sizing its market at around $5.6 bn. Outsell would perhaps make then an even smaller percentage of an even larger market.
Post a Comment