A lot to unpack here, Richard. My first impression is: This was long overdue. Gartner, for lack of a better word, has exploited their influence for a long time. What that created was a somewhat “unholy” alliance between vendors and the services they provided. I will add a bit more color:
Years an ago I worked at Software AG. We came out with a new software solution and had literally no customers. We had a historical relationship with Gartner and spent a good amount money with them. That last point is the key.
When the new quadrant came out, we “magically” appeared not only in the quadrant, we were on the line of the top right corner. As sales people, we were thrilled, it gave us “instant street cred”, for a product with perhaps 10 customers (existing customers had it-we threw it in free as we did renewals).
This begs the question: “How long has this kind of thing been happening?” And more important, “How many solutions were overlooked, or never got any consideration?”
With AI and IT-Harvest, the playing field has now been leveled. 💥👊
Thanks for sharing that story John. As much as we are striving to pave the way for a new way to approach industry analysis, we need to invest millions to move beyond cybersecurity.
Quality stuff as usual, Richard. Seeing as I've been in print for a while, I can relate to that whole chasing the shiny new object situation...though in the industry, many people often seem to be late to the game. Just another reason for flat to declining space.
Cyber, on the other hand, likely has the same deal going on, but this is a must-have piece for now and forever. I know that you and your service provide more value than multiple analysts at any research house.
I had a voracious appetite for any and all vendors who covered areas I was interested in - or could be interested in. I once included a bunch of startups and smaller vendors along with the larger, legacy vendors in an MQ. The larger legacies did not enjoy their placements and that MQ never saw the light of day.
I’ve seen Gartner placing large vendors top right way after their star has faded… with there already being better options out there. The problem is the “faded stars” still have financial momentum and spend power, and for Gartner to be harsh, or even ruthlessly accurate about its biggest payers is a challenge. The IT Harvest model - where all vendors within a certain space are covered - and where the vendors are not paying, creates no such conflict of interest issues.
A lot to unpack here, Richard. My first impression is: This was long overdue. Gartner, for lack of a better word, has exploited their influence for a long time. What that created was a somewhat “unholy” alliance between vendors and the services they provided. I will add a bit more color:
Years an ago I worked at Software AG. We came out with a new software solution and had literally no customers. We had a historical relationship with Gartner and spent a good amount money with them. That last point is the key.
When the new quadrant came out, we “magically” appeared not only in the quadrant, we were on the line of the top right corner. As sales people, we were thrilled, it gave us “instant street cred”, for a product with perhaps 10 customers (existing customers had it-we threw it in free as we did renewals).
This begs the question: “How long has this kind of thing been happening?” And more important, “How many solutions were overlooked, or never got any consideration?”
With AI and IT-Harvest, the playing field has now been leveled. 💥👊
Thanks for sharing that story John. As much as we are striving to pave the way for a new way to approach industry analysis, we need to invest millions to move beyond cybersecurity.
Quality stuff as usual, Richard. Seeing as I've been in print for a while, I can relate to that whole chasing the shiny new object situation...though in the industry, many people often seem to be late to the game. Just another reason for flat to declining space.
Cyber, on the other hand, likely has the same deal going on, but this is a must-have piece for now and forever. I know that you and your service provide more value than multiple analysts at any research house.
I had a voracious appetite for any and all vendors who covered areas I was interested in - or could be interested in. I once included a bunch of startups and smaller vendors along with the larger, legacy vendors in an MQ. The larger legacies did not enjoy their placements and that MQ never saw the light of day.
I’ve seen Gartner placing large vendors top right way after their star has faded… with there already being better options out there. The problem is the “faded stars” still have financial momentum and spend power, and for Gartner to be harsh, or even ruthlessly accurate about its biggest payers is a challenge. The IT Harvest model - where all vendors within a certain space are covered - and where the vendors are not paying, creates no such conflict of interest issues.