Monday, 6 February 2006

InformationWeek article "Credibility Of Analysts"

The article "Credibility Of Analysts" mentioned in the previous post has been published. Rather long, about eight pages printed with the sidebar.

While Greenemeier and McDougall raise some interesting questions, it seems rather soft and does not nail any of the firms on any issue.

Some of the issues they raise are interesting, like the credibility / ethics issue: can you be credible when vendor have to pay-to-play?

I love this quote too: A visitor to InformationWeek.com last week weighed in with a different complaint in a blog posting: "The problem I've seen with analyst firms is when analysts forget their primary role as trend watchers and market surveyors and think of themselves as market makers."

The Forrrester Wave is also depicted as more transparent than the Gartner MQ, which is probably wrong in our opinion given the recent MQ process changes.

The bottom line summarises quite well the cynicism about IT analysts:

"So IDC helps seed the market, Gartner helps price it, and both get paid for doing so. Is everyone comfortable with that?"

2 comments:

Neil Ward-Dutton said...

I just came across this pretty fun dissection of the IW report on the blog of new analyst firm Security Incite - pulls no punches!

Thought you'd like to know. (BTW I have no affiliation with these guys. I just like the blog.)

Duncan Chapple said...

Our research suggests that what they say is okay, but one sides: take a look at http://analystrelations.blogspot.com/2006/02/research-suggests-karma-beats.html