Analyst group Gartner has detailed how it prepares its sometimes-controversial magic quadrants, revealing that a two-hour demo is sometimes part of the research process. Gartner already offers a detailed explanation of how it compiles its Magic Quadrants here. But in an exchange with governance, risk management and compliance …
And don't forget the complex process of wining and dining which I've heard takes place. I think that part should be added to the blog post as well. ;)
Wining and Dining? lol, that's surely what Gartner do for their clients. I always understood that the Quadrant ratings were far more about which tech. companies paid Gartner the most money?
Interesting article, but does expalin what I have thought around reading their data if you go beyond just looking at the pictures, their research data is often wrong, and does not go into enough detail, and of course, as the previous poster mentions, that is no mention of the out of hours conversations.....
I don't think it was just his blog that caused this....
There's been many more about other Tragic Quadrant reports. This year Gartner has faced a major backlash from some big vendors.
gartner...talking bollox for money
can't think of anything else to add really
Re: gartner...talking bollox for money
Maybe the monkeys only too happy to pay them to do so?
...that it's called a "Magic Quadrant" tells you all you really need to know. Isn't it great to know that a few people talking bollocks can destroy your entire company?
Re: The fact...
It was an absolute joy watching the banks drive off a cliff with their experts approval. Well, until you realize your the one in the car!
Re: destroy your entire company
Perhaps someone should try that on Gartner?
Who knows? If we ask the analysts where their expertise is, we might get the same answer we got when asked the bankers where the money was.
Re: destroy your entire company
> Perhaps someone should try that on Gartner?
Gartner: Making vendors add nonsense to software...
Much like the news media should be reporting the news rather than controlling it, Gartner should be reporting innovation rather than controlling it. Neither of these cases are true, obviously.
Was once on a training course for some complex product or other and on some configuration sections we skipped over important-looking parameters with the instructor saying, "You can ignore that - it's just there to keep Gartner happy - nobody will use it in the real world".
I was left wondering what was left out so that could be put in - or left out as Gartner didn't deem it important.
Well done Gartner.
I'm always amused in these threads by people who are convinced that they know how Gartner works, or what their consultants do or don't know, despite never having had any apparent contact with the analysts.
I'm no fan of Gartner, but frankly, most of the critics in this thread are guilty of "I don't like what they said, therefore their methods must be rubbish".
Magic Quadrants can be easily understood:
x-axis: represents the weight, thickness and consistancy of the brown envelopes
y-axis: this denotes the quality of the dinners and luches provided
blob size: this is used to rate free gifts("merch") and/or junket received
Any sufficiently advanced technology...
...is indistinguishable from it's Magic Quadrant
Re: Any sufficiently advanced technology...
*its* fingers on autocorrect
Naive software vendor; silly discussion
This is funny. The entire software vendor's discussion is about the rigidity of the demo they provide to Gartner. Pretty naive. They're confusing Garter with another consulting firm, perhaps Forrester, that actually looks at products carefully.
It's easy to prove that Gartner doesn't: look at the X and Y axes of the Magic Quadrant charts. They're "Completeness of Vision" and "Ability to Execute" last time I checked. Notice that neither of those axes has to do with the completeness of the currently shipping solution? Nope. That's not a big part of the equation.
So if some vendor with deep pockets can show an impressive deck of slides with their "vision" they can get the top spot quite simply. They have a complete vision, and they have the cash to make it happen (whether they have the desire, will or competence to carry it out is a separate question, as is the completeness of the currently shipping product).
- Product Round-up Smartwatch face off: Pebble, MetaWatch and new hi-tech timepieces
- Geek's Guide to Britain BT Tower is just a relic? Wrong: It relays 18,000hrs of telly daily
- Geek's Guide to Britain The bunker at the end of the world - in Essex
- Review: Sony Xperia SP
- FLABBER-JASTED: It's 'jif', NOT '.gif', says man who should know