Friday, 23 December 2005

AR 101 series: the research process

In this post, the ubiquitous James Governor points to a post by a Richard Monson-Haefel, an analyst at Burton Group (a US RAS client-side firm): Burton Group’s Brutal, but Effective Review Process. It is an interesting and detailed insight into a firm's research process.

ARmadgeddon's tips: AR professionals should do their research and me aware of the research process followed by the firms they track. Questions they should be able to answer are:

  • Do you have a research agenda?
  • Do you publish different kind of notes?
  • If yes, do they follow the same validation process?
  • Do you review research notes internally?
  • Do you systematically send your reports for vendor review?
  • Even if the vendor is not a client?
  • Do you send the whole document or just the portion related to the vendor?
  • Do you accept discussion on your positions and recommendations?
  • Do you communicate on changes made?
  • Do you take calls to discuss the review?
  • Even if the vendor is not a client?
  • What turnaround time do you expect from a vendor?


alan pelz-sharpe said...

Very interesting - the Burton process is not dissimilar to the old Ovum Alpha/Beta process that saw the publication of many stellar reports through the 90's.

Most analyst firms do not have such a rigorous process any more - but it is good to see that one still does.

Also good to see a bit of brutality alive in the community. I have been subject to and subjected others to, horrendous peer review processes - though horrid at the time, outstanding research often came of it.

I will be the first to put my hand up and say that the quality of my own output dropped noticably when it was no longer subject to this type of review cycle.

james governor said...

i may be ubiquitous, but that doesnt mean i dont appreciate links to me that are actually to me. what's up with the link you posted?

ovum also posted some right old bollocks in the 1990s, peer review or not. rosemary rock evans COM report was always my favourite - it put me off the associate model for years.

Anonymous said...

"right old bollocks"? James, a comment like is useless. It gives no idea of what your critique of the report was, and makes you look like a bully.

alan pelz-sharpe said...

James I assume you posted that message tongue in cheek - Rosemary is one of the best analysts of her generation and was arguably one of the first of the genuine star analysts.
In my time at Ovum I came across so many clients past and present who worshiped the ground she walked on.
Your post is unpleasant and unnecessary - I would suggest you either justify it or apologise.

Did Ovum put out some rubbish reports, sure probably - but overall it put out throughout the 90's some of the best analyst research available. Heather Stark, Henk Baker, Phil Carnelley, David Well's etc wrote reports then that are still of value now. Quite frankly I see little coming out today that is of that stature.

ARonaut said...

Sorry James, Link fixed -unless you want another one?