Sampling issues

When peddling their wares to analysts, vendors are often opposed an apparently unbeatable argument: the number of inquiries from users. We have seen Borg analysts using it in different ways, one being the small number of customer calls equates a slow of market acceptance.

There is apparently no come back -it's the A-bomb: Gartner is right because it has insight from its end-user client base.

However, this is somewhat simplistic and AR professionals should challenge analysts to explore the following avenues:

• Customers can be calling for a number of reasons but more often than not when they have an issue. No problems, no calls. This means RAS analysts don't tend to hear from satisfied customers and may thus develop a tendency to paint a picture darker than reality.
• The issues customers are calling about may be different than the analyst's assumptions, for instance they may be confused rather than not buying at all.
• Finally Gartner's users customer base may be very different from a given vendor -they are less represented in SME's and Southern Europe for instance.

The Borg recedes in Oz and turns into high-tech sausage factory

Duncan indicates here that Gartner is shutting down its consulting division in Asia Pacific.

This is after all little surprise, given the lack of focus (and understanding) shown by the Borg has shown for consulting (see links below). Consulting is lower margins and less repeatable than RAS (Research and Advisory Services) which can be produced once and sold many times. However, consulting was the fastest growing P&L item at META Group... Gartner's recent strategy is all about milking customers by increasing repeat business (hence the focus on customer satisfaction to drive up renewals) and creating "silo products" to sell the same research to users having different roles within a same corporate client. Call that milking or turning analysts into sausage factory workers.

What is odd is this quote found in one of the articles linked by good old Dunc:
"A Gartner Australia spokesperson said the closure of the consulting division was based on the company's lack of resources in a market littered by hundreds of competitors, including; Accenture, and IBM Global Services." (from Axe falls on Gartner's consulting division, Computerworld)

It is curious indeed to see what business they think they are in.


Links:

• Sweepstake opens: when will Gartner Consulting go?
• Gartner rediscovers price benchmarking
• Does size implies relevance?
• Gartner ≠ Consulting ?
• Gartner as a consulting business?
• Revealed: why Gartner took over META!!!

Will Informa compete with Gartner, or IDC?

The AR grapevine is red hot today. As ARcade explains in this post, Informa has bought Datamonitor for $1 billion. Dominic says the new firm will be larger than Forrester, but smaller than Gartner and IDC.

If, like me, you're not familiar with Informa, that's probably because its an English firm that's big in telecoms and media. It seems to be a research and events business with little - if any - advisory, consulting and community services. It's like the IDC business model, but on Yankee Group's beat.

Giving the timing of the deal, most of the comment on the purchase has been made in the UK, by technobabble, Analyst Equity and the Financial Times.

We're getting a lot of email in from readers to give us their take -- please join the crowd and tell us what you think. At first glance, it's not clear to our readers that the deal is mainly, or even partly, driven by the need to challenge Gartner. Datamonitor and Informa are both broader than technology, and Informa will mainly be interested in ways it can get some quick wins by extending into non-tech market segments.

Brought together, the tech and telecoms businesses now inside the Informa group look more like a competitor to IDC than to any other firm.

Let us know what you think. As always, email comments will be kept confidential.

Tony Friscia moves into analyst relations?

Jigsaw, the online business directory, now lists AMR Research founder Tony Friscia as working at Knowledge Capital Group.

He's busy. Yesterday Tony was elected onto the override study committee for the Brookline school system, which educates his girls. We think he could so the same job for KCG, but would he be comfortable west of the Hudson?

Analysts need to demonstrate their smarts and relevance to the right vendor community, by Carter Lusher

Carter has made a series of of comments on one of our posts. We think they deserve higher profile so, without his permission, we are posting each of them as a post in order to separate the themes and promote more discussion.

Most analysts assume that everybody knows how smart and influential they are. Sorry, but that is dead wrong. Then the analyst gets angry, stamps his or her foot and yells about how smart and influential they are. Wrong again. Merely saying you are smart and influential proves nothing. Just like a vendor saying that it is the leader in a market means nothing unless they have something to prove that statement.

BTW, Gartner analysts fall into this trap as well. Just because they work at Gartner does not mean that AR, MI, CI or executive will believe that every Gartner analyst is smart and relevant.

Analysts, from single practitioners to the largest firms, need to develop appropriate proof points to demonstrate their smarts and relevance.

Roles of the Analyst – Market/Sales Influencers, Decision Support, Smart Advisors, Sales Support, by Cartner Lusher

Carter has made a series of of comments on one of our posts. We think they deserve higher profile so, without his permission, we are posting each of them as a post in order to separate the themes and promote more discussion.

A common misunderstanding that I deal with is that many boutique firms and single practitioners do not know that there are multiple communities with my company that interact with the analysts for different reasons. These analysts often assume that AR handles all the roles and get angry because they assume that because AR won’t brief them, then they cannot sell their services to that vendor. Wrong. The analyst is simply talking to the wrong vendor employee. While the communities different from one vendor to another, here is a high level description that works in many circumstances:

Analyst relations (AR) – Educates analysts who influence sales deals on the vendor’s capabilities so the analysts can appropriate position the vendor to IT managers with budgets.

Market intelligence (MI) – Buys syndicated market research and commissions primary research projects for decision support purposes. Often MI is mainly interested in market share numbers.

Executives – Execs will often have contracts with smart people whose opinion they respect to use as a sounding board. Sometimes these are analysts/consultants who were formerly at large firms and then left. Just because they left their prior firm does not mean the analyst got dumb, but often their market influence drops dramatically so they are not relevant to AR, but that does not mean that an executive does not appreciate the advice.

Competitive Intelligence (CI) – Group that provides information to the sales force about the competitors’ products and assists with request for proposal responses.

Bottom line is that the analyst needs to understand how each vendor is set up and then target the appropriate community. Merely yelling at AR because they won’t buy your services might be a waste of time if MI is the one who owns the budget.

Tiering versus Ranking, by Carter Lusher

Carter has made a series of of comments on one of our posts. We think they deserve higher profile so, without his permission, we are posting each of them as a post in order to separate the themes and promote more discussion.

Because there is no generally accepted definition of what “tier” means in the context of the analyst industry, let me offer some points to get the discussion started.

An analyst list is ranked based on relevance to what the vendor is trying to accomplish and tiered based on AR resources.

“Trying to Accomplish” – Hopefully the AR group is aligned with the vendor’s corporate strategy and marketing goals, which will in part indicate which analysts are relevant. When the corporate strategy or marketing goals change, then this impacts which analysts are relevant.

“Ranking” – Can be based on all or in part on how directly the analyst covers a market or topic, size of client base, overlap of the analyst’s client base with the vendor’s customer or prospect bases, visibility in the press or new media, public events she speaks at, demonstrated impact on sales deals and so on. Ranking criteria are subject to change over time.

“Tiered based on AR resources” – This is the tricky one and often not addressed. Not every vendor has sufficiently invested in AR staff to handle all analysts that want attention. As a consequence, the AR team has to focus on those analysts that they have the resources to provide appropriate support to. If one spreads the peanut butter too thin, then nothing is accomplished. This is no different than segmenting the customer base to provide dedicated sales teams to strategic accounts, while others customers share the same sales rep and yet other customers are supported by a telesales call center. There are only so many resources to spread around.

Example: In market A, there are 50 analysts that truly cover the market. The vendor’s AR team has ranked the analysts 1 through 50 based on the relevance of the analysts. Because the AR team consists of a single individual, the number of tier 1 analysts is 10. The vendor decides to hire another AR professional – doubling the team – leading to a doubling of tier 1 analysts. It is not that analysts 11 to 20 on the list suddenly got smarter or more influential, but that the vendor now how more resources to reach out to more analysts.

- - -
Because most blogging software is really not set up to handle threads within a series of comments on a single post, I am putting “Topic” categories at the top of my comments as kludge. Perhaps ARmadgeddon can break some of these out as separate posts to make it easier to have a thread.

BTW, I am not hiding behind “Anonymous” and if anybody wishes to get in touch with me to debate this offline, I am more than happy to take your phone call. BTW, I expect to get flamed by “Anonymous,” so be it.

Which are the first-tier global analyst firms?

It's great to start the week with a laugh, especially after spring break, so thanks to the reader who sent us a link to http://www.canalys.com/pr/2007/p2007041.htm.

In that piece of startling modesty, Canalys (who?) announced that it is "recognized as a first-tier global analyst firm." With revenues of $5.6m, almost exactly Gartner's spending on office plants, we think the first-tier firms have nothing to fear. Canalys has revenue of $200K per analyst/consultant, so it is still a little short of Gartner's $880K.

AR 101 Series: John Lyotier on scheduling analyst briefings

John Lyotier, marketing manager at Marqui, wrote this post on its blog back in 2005.
We like it so much, we thought we'd give it a wider audience. Thanks John!
==============================================================

For the last week or so I've been busily making arrangements for Marqui to speak with industry analysts from a number of well known groups, such as AMR Research, Gartner, IDC, etc. Now, many companies are under the impression that the only way to get any attention from such firms is to pay them.

This is absolutely incorrect.

Granted, it may be easier to get multiple meetings if you are a paying client (it's part of the service after all), but all of the reputable firms will take at least 1-2 briefings without charging a dime -- in fact, most of them accept briefings on a yearly basis from non-paying companies.

The exact process varies depending on the firm but typically companies will be asked to submit some basic information via e-mail or an online form. This usually includes:

• A brief company overview, including employee headcount, headquarters address, etc.
• The objective for the meeting (e.g., is it for a general introduction or perhaps a product update)
• A list of company representatives planning to attend the meeting
• The names of the analyst(s) you'd prefer to meet with (NOTE: the process will move much faster if you have researched and correctly identified 1-2 relevant analysts. Most groups post analyst bios and a list of recent reports on their web sites so it shouldn't be too difficult to find this information.)
• A few dates and times for a meeting

The process takes anywhere from 48 hours to 2-3 weeks so I'd highly recommend starting a month in advance if you are trying to arrange briefings around a major corporate or product launch.

In terms of how to get things started with some of the biggies:

• For Gartner, send an e-mail to vendor.briefings@gartner.com. Within 24 hours, you'll receive a briefing request form to complete and send back.
• For AMR Research, click here and fill out the form.
• For Forrester, click here and fill out the form.
• For IDC, click here and fill out the form (NOTE: The form varies depending on whether or not your company has briefed IDC in the last 12 months, so be sure to follow the directions.)

If you've worked with a particular group before or have a PR agency (or analyst relations firm) that has, you might be able to bypass all of the forms by sending an e-mail directly to the appropriate analyst. However, given how many e-mails and briefing requests these folks receive it might actually be faster to go through the formal process.

AR Classics: Analyst Upheaval: What to Do About It

Four years ago, former Giga vice-president Gay Slesinger wrote this guidance about how to deal with analyst depatures. Since Gay wrote this she shuttered her business iMarket Strategies. We'd love to know what happened to her.

=====

"Are you there? Please be there," Analyst Relations pros must think every time they contact the key industry analysts in their segment.

No wonder, given the upheaval in the IT industry over the past three years. The IT analysis firms suffered as well, with declining revenues and customer bases, leading to acquisitions, layoffs and closures.

Not helping the fear of here-today-gone-tomorrow was Gartner's December 5 announcement that it is laying off 200 workers, or 5 percent of its 3,800-person global work force.

Many analysts, including senior and "star" analysts, have left their firms proactively or due to layoffs, often forming small boutique firms that focus on a technology or a vertical industry, or going solo as analyst relations consultants or subject matter experts. This trend contributes to a significant rise in the number of ex-analysts and firms in the market.

According to Norma LaRosa, CEO of the Kensington Group, Inc., there are approximately 20,000 IT analysts worldwide. Kensington tracks 450 firms, more than double the number just two years ago.

The good news for vendors is that there is much more expertise available for a variety of prices, although the bad news lies in determining which analysts to focus on for Analyst Relations.

The key is influence. Some analysts who exit major firms continue to be influential with their long-standing IT customers. For this reason, although many vendors keep their subscriptions to the major analyst firms, they also contract with the individual or boutique analysts for feedback and the impact of their influence.

But for any analyst who leaves a firm, only time will tell if that person will continue to have influence with IT customers, or if their former colleagues or competitors will fill that role. The analysts who remain at firms when others depart may find that they now cover more vendors, answer to more clients and are responsible for a wider scope of technologies, covering additional topics beyond their core expertise.

So what is an AR pro to do in this environment? Some recommendations:

1. •Don't just talk with the star analysts at a firm; include their lesser known colleagues within the same subject matter area. They may be "A" players soon.
2. •Develop a program for bringing new or junior analysts up-to-speed on your company and products as soon as possible. Ask the analysts what information they want to receive and how they want to receive it. Ask what reports the analysts are working on and provide relevant information.
3. •Remember that AR is a relationship business, not just a marketing program. The analysts' value goes beyond the data they analyze and the trends they spot - it's also the people they know and what they say to them. What analysts literally say to their customers one-on-one can be more important to an IT purchase than what they write in reports to their subscribers as a group. Similarly, the quality of the relationship you build with analysts can be more important than the data you share.
4. •Prepare your AR staff and briefing team, especially senior executives, for the fact that they may be dealing with someone less experienced and less knowledgeable about your company than in the past.
5. •Consider using the services of independent analysts or boutique firms, especially if your company or budget is small. If an analyst had a stellar reputation among customers while at a larger firm, the individual may continue to have sway. Regardless, these analysts can still provide vendors with valuable analysis and feedback.
6. •If you use independent or boutique analyst firms, monitor their influence with your IT customers and prospects. Ask buyers which analysts influence their purchase decisions - their answers may change over time. Notice which analysts continue to have influence or impact when they are no longer part of their former firms' brand. Are the analysts still in touch with vendors? With IT customers? Can they add value to your AR program? To your product development, market research and marketing?
7. •If you are a customer of analyst firms, monitor the quality and frequency of the reports that cover the technology segments and vendors you are interested in reviewing, as an end-user consumer of research and as a marketer of products. As a customer, you have a right to make requests for better, broader or deeper research.
8. •Negotiate for better rates as a customer, especially if you are dissatisfied with the quality of the reports or the exit of key analysts. Analyst firms need the revenue. It's cheaper for them to keep you as a customer than to replace you.
9. •Remember that although the firms and the people change, your AR purpose remains the same: positive influence.

Is DST really the top tech issue?

Is it just me?

Gartner's website is leading on the impact of Daylight Saving Time. Three of Gartner's vice-presidents have united to tell us that "While not on the scale of Y2K, this change could generate problems that modestly disrupt business operations, irritate customers and tarnish professional reputations."

By the time this news reached Gartner's PR team, the modest disruption seems to have grown. "Imminent Changes to US Daylight Saving Time Will Have Global Business Implications", said the firm. Readers outside the US should know that DST has been extended by four weeks here. This takes some software applications off the calendar they would have expected prior to 2005.

We accept that Gartner's research need not be at the leading edge because it focusses on the needs of big businesses. However, we have two concerns. First, if they want to get out of the CIO niche then leading with this kind of story looks really odd. They look super-geeky: almost as bad as IDC. Second, we just don't think it's that important. If even Gartner says it will have a smaller impact than Y2K, then who will even notice?

[CIO mind] Analyst reports: How to read them?

In this post (Analyst reports: How to read them) Felix addresses the basic rules of reading research: check who wrote it and do your homework.

We would add:

Understand the business model of the analyst firm (is it vendor facing or do their revenues come from end-users?)

Check if the report sponsored

Have a look at the methodology, and in particular at the sample size and distribution (did the analyst interview 5 clients in Cincinatti or did they survey 120 firms distributed in EMEA with a fair split by industry?)

But more importantly, is the analyst riding the hype wave (like Yankee in the old days) or do they provide actionable advice?

Special mention for market shares: whereas numbers are generally very accurate on a WW or EMEA basis, regardless of the technology. However, requesting 2 or 3 dimensional cuts from the data cube (for instance market shares for Managed Services in Denmark and Retail Banking) is asking for trouble. Do NOT EVER EVER base compensation on market share without having a discussion with the analyst on the statistical confidence interval.

ARmadgeddon's takes:

The huge variability in research quality hides a constant improvement: analysts are getting better at cutting the hype and providing meaningful actionable recommendations for users. The downside is that research notes have become a bit less entertaining.

Don't read research naively as if it was excerpts from a holy book. Dissect, reflect and question.

Read also:

• AR 101: the research process
• AR Classics: Don't Let Yourself be Misled by Analyst Bias
• 79.7% of all Gartner RAS statistics are made up
• More on Analysts’ Data Sample Size
• Why Gartner and Forrester will NOT be Disintermediated

IDC goes far and wide... but not to users?

IDC publised a press release on their web site and Tekrati detailing their results for the first time: as they are a subsidiary of IDG, which is privately owned. So far they've shyed away from disclosing financials. This behaviour change might indicate that IDG may be considering putting up a IDC on the market?

Here are the numbers anyway for CY06: $297 million, 12% increase over 2005. That's $109k per analyst (the claim to have 900). For Gartner (IT), this ratio amounts to a staggering $745k/analyst.

IDC does not break down their events and consulting business, although they mention it as an "important area of growth", claiming to reach 45,000 technology buyers and IT executives (we would love to know the breakdown).

They plan to extend their geographical and industry coverage -they have a much better geographical coverage than Gartner Dataquest and they seem pretty successful with their Industry Insights programme -they have invested $40m to further boost it.

What their press release doesn't mention though is their consulting business. The word on the street is that they're not really aggressive. The IDC brand is quite strong with users and IDC would gain technology buyer insight and influence worth every penny for vendors...

Talking heads

Kim Horner from the AR agency CustomerClix publishes a newsletter for AR professionals. In the the July edition, she provides some analyst ranking in the UK media, thanks to Apollo Surveys:

1. Clive Longbottom, Quocirca
2. Andrew Kellett, Butler Group
3. Joe Wilcox, Jupiter Research
4. Keith Humphries, euroLAN
5. Michael Gartenberg, Jupiter Research
6. Mike Davis, Butler Group
7. Rob Bamforth, Quocirca
8. David Bradshaw, Ovum
9. Mark Blowers, Butler Group
10. Andrew Jaquith, Yankee Group
11. Graham Titterington, Ovum
12. Gary Barnett, Ovum
13. Michael A Silver, Gartner
14. Nigel Montgomery, AMR Research
15. Gordon Haff, Illuminata
16. Carolina Milanesi, Gartner
17. Pierre Audoin, Pierre Audoin Consultants
18. Robert Enderle, The Enderle Group

The study is from May 2006 but it's nevertheless interesting and contains a few surprises. The list is actually counter-intuitive to a certain extent. The explanation is that journalists get their quotes from several sources: vendor press releases (see AR 101: Analysts and press quotes), research firms press releases (announcing new reports), personal relationships with analysts and finally proactive outreach from analysts. From a reporter standpoint, a great analyst is one that's always available (especially 5mn before a filing deadline) to talk about anything and everything, preferably with some numerical data (market share, index or else).

Bottom line: talking heads are not necessary those influencing deals (actually, it's quite the opposite) but they can help improving your firms' media profile (and make you best friend with your PR department).

Zimmerman launches Analyst Perspectives

Jim Zimmerman, founder of white paper specialists Tekra, has a new blog - AnalystPerspectives. It's run through another venture he's associated with, Books24x7 (Even we find it hard to track all of Jim's ventures).

When he's not maintaining an excellent directory of analysts, Jim's blog provides commentary on the IT and Telecommunications analyst firm markets. His first few posts are good. He has a weekly profile of a tier 2 and 3 analyst firms, including Chainlink, Saugatuck, Mesabi and Valley View Ventures.

Let's hope he keeps up the momentum. As Joe and David have found, the first year is the easiest! Now that John is back from his sabbatical, at least there's one guarantee of more AR blogging in the future.

ReForming Dynamics

We heard that Jon Collins (aka Jono, ex. IDC, ex. Quocirca, ex. Bloor, ex. MWD) just joined the Viles into FreeForm Dynamic, a firm that itself is an emanation of Quocirca. He's not the only one with itchy feet but, pfew, tracking analysts is a job in itself! When he's not busy changing jobs, Jon writes books: on music, more music or gardening.

Freeform Dynamics has now four analysts after Martin Atherton joined from the Datamonibores: Dale Vile, David Perry, Martin and Jon. Not to forget Helen Vile running the operations. They pretty much offer what Quocirca does (what goes around comes around): primary research, speaking engagement and white papers. They also publish research on their web site, covering about all the ICT segments: Communication and Collaboration, Infrastructure Optimisation, Customer Relationship Management and Resourcing and Outsourcing.

Read also:

• Making it up While Drinking
• The revolving door is in full spin...
• Ex. Quocirca founder launches Freeform Dynamics
• [Analyst insight]: John Collin's blog
• [Freeform Comment]: Jon Collins and MWD

AR 101 Series: Don't use a sales presentation with analysts

Most AR managers review a number of presentations each month, typically in conference calls or meetings with spokespeople. First-time critiques often result in recommendations for significant revisions because best practices for constructing the typical sales or marketing presentation do not produce the best flow or information content required for an effective analyst briefing. Unfortunately, when a sales presentation is used with an analyst, it frequently results in a negative perception of the company and its solutions by the analyst.

Some of the common errors are listed below.

• Starting with the solution rather than the problem. The best sales approach starts by showing the value of solving a problem. However, analysts often complain that vendors spend too much time setting up the scene and giving background, and too little time explaining what the solution actually does.
• Using the vendor's vocabulary, rather than the analyst's framework. Analysts work in models, so spokespeople need to gear each presentation to the analyst's model, rather than a generic sales presentation of the solution.
• If the analyst follows a narrower segment than your solution, then match your comments to their narrow focus. If you speak to a broad sales deck, analysts will go negative -- either they will assume you can't target the right analysts, or they will think you don't know what they focus on.
• Don't follow a script. Analysts want to feel vendors are open with them. Following the sales slides deck closely makes analysts feel that you are not confident speaking on other topics, and makes them feel that you are controlling the conversation too tightly.
  

What's the alternative? Focus on intended results and incorporate your understanding of the analysts and the workings of the industry analyst marketplace when preparing an analyst presentation, especially when confronted with a stubborn spokesperson who resists your suggestions for building an effective “deck.

Analyst Impartiality Questionned by NYT and the Motley Fool

A kind reader brought this article from The Fool to our attention: The Other Analyst Scam.

It links to an interesting article by Ashlee Vance from El Reg about the New York Times banning Rob Enderle from commenting in their pages after they got a complaint about a conflict of interest. The interesting point is is that while the NYT was having a go at poor old Rob they continued to use Gartner, IDC, Jupiter, Yankee and ABI! Incidently, it is quite ironical for the NYT to feel being in a position to patronise analysts about integrity...

As per one a comment on one of our posts, journalists should D.O. T.H.E.I.R. R.E.S.E.A.R.C.H. and check their sources before quoting analysts. They should also not quote any random number (but that would suppose they would have some understanding of market sizing methodologies -sigh).

The Motley Fool article insists on this point: market numbers are produced by firms (such as IDC, Gartner, etc...) whose business model depends on IT Vendors.


ARmadgeddon's take:

• Industry analysts will increasingly be pressurised to disclose who pays them and should be careful before returning favours in the shape of press quotes. In other words, transparency will condition their reputation and thus existence.
• AR Managers should not push analysts to provide blatant endorsement as they too often backfire. They should also use analyst quotes in press releases with caution.
• Journalists should do their homework. Like figuring out that a one-man-shop has little or no peer reviews and its coverage will follow more closely vendor briefings than their own research agendas. But maybe that's too much asking?
• Incidently, this also pressurises the Borg to review the disclosure rules and department separation of their Gartner Invest service following vendor concern.

Links:

• enderlegroup.com
• The Register: NY Times rattles IT industry with analyst ban
• The Motley Fool: The Other Analyst Scam
• The Register: Rob Enderle weighs in on NY Times ban
• The Register: NY Times bans Microsoft analysts from Microsoft stories
• The Register: IDC's missing Itanium report found at rival analyst firm
• The Register: Le Misancalculation: A one act Itanium tragedy by IDC
• Gartner Invest
• ARcade: Gartner Invest: Establish clear rules of engagement

Previous posts:

• Post-scriptum on "Yankee, analyst impartiality and circular references"
• Yankee, analyst impartiality and circular references
• IDC misses forecast by 1900%
• After the Sydney Symposium

Taxonomizing Open Source Analysis

James McGovern kicked-off the idea in this post where he suggests large enterprises only use large analyst firms as part of their ongoing efforts to curb the number of suppliers and because they simply don't know who the independent analysts are:

• Analyzing the Analysts (in Enterprise Architecture: Thought Leadership)

So if marketing and size are not being the only reasons for the Borg Empire Domination, what then can be done? There's been talks of a Federation but not much happened...

James came up with a simple (and thus great) idea: a wiki cataloguing Open Source Analysts. Duncan details it in this post and provides the link to the wiki:

• Open source approaches to analyst relations

This looks like a great idea, but there's a but: it will only work with active participation...

However, wikis could be viable as the main delivery mechanism for open source research notes or a way to organise research: end-user clients often cite the main reason for using Gartner is that it provides a one-stop-shop for research covering most IT and business topics. On the other hand, blogs are tedious to read and are not well/consistently archived/indexed/tagged. We thought ITD was going to be an answer but it does not seem to be gaining much commercial momentum (read Have you seen my plan, my plan, my plan?).

Take it as a call to the Open Source Analyst community: it should organise itself to provide a single-source (research) distribution (channel). The idea is not new and implies agreeing on a taxonomy, possibly working together on research pieces, vetting in/out members, etc... . The payback would be a body of research easily accessible that could have the potential to impact the whole industry and drive end-users and vendors to using indepent analysts. Think of a Wikipedia for IT Analysis, free of the Borg Dogmas.

Read also this post for more links on Open Source Analysis:

• Friday post: open source analysis, briefing blasts...

Wra-up: Borg Audits and more...

We've been alerted by a reader that the Gartner Borg is stepping up its "audits": they're trawling their useage stats and sending warnings to those they suspect are passing on the research. Oooohhh, no AR or MI professional would ever do this, would we?

We suspect this might has something to do with their upcoming product for AR Managers....
The issue lies with the fact that the guidelines around "unfair use" are not public and it sems different rules apply, depending mostly on the overall contract value.

We also heard that the Borg is trying to enforce a policy that its sales reps should attend every briefing. It's quite unclear what they are trying to achieve but we would appreciate readers feedback.

Talking about feedback, it has been abundant and entertaining on our Datamonitor post: Datamonibores penetrates the gametes. It looks like Ovum analysts are in two camps: happy ones with shares to cash in and the others.

PS: we would be interested to have some readers feedback from the Cannes Symposium...