For years IT and telecommunications vendors have complained about the misuse of Gartner Magic Quadrants by IT buyers. It appears that three key issues are routinely surfaced:
1) The criteria for placing the dots onto the graphic are not transparent and often the dots appear to be randomly placed by the whim of the analyst
2) Magic Quadrants are not always updated in a timely manner and out-of-date MQ’s seem to stay around forever
3) Research consumers often look only at the graphic and miss the supporting research note or do not speak directly with the analysts via client inquiry. This is especially true when free reprints are made available to non-clients by various vendors
Part of the problem is that while Gartner has background information about the MQ on its website (click here to read, free registration required) and a perfunctory paragraph to readers in the fine print in the footnote of MQ PDFs (click on graphic on left to enlarge), it does not have a systematically approach to training its clients about how the MQ is to be used. That is one of the reasons why SageCircle wrote IT managers, it’s never, ever only about the upper right dot when it comes to Forrester Waves or Gartner Magic Quadrants. (There is longer, more detailed version of this content in our SageNote™ “A Consumer’s Guide to using Gartner’s Magic Quadrant”.)
It was therefore refreshing to see a blog post on the Gartner Blog network by Jim Holincheck entitled Misunderstanding Magic Quadrants, MarketScopes, and More where he talks a bit about criteria transparency and the way these reports should be used. It makes a good read for both vendor clients and IT buyer clients. This addresses the number one concern above. Perhaps with more discussion the use of these important tools can be improved.
However, there is still a disconnect with issue number three. Jim states “More importantly though, […]
“@carterlusher why is more analysts blogging better?”
John was responding to my reply to a comment (“Good news, Gartner is allowing analysts to blog @carterlusher will be thrilled”) by Forrester analyst Jeremiah Owyang (bio, blog, Twitter handle). This comment pointed out Gartner analyst Gene Phifer’s (bio, blog, Twitter handle) post about how Gartner analysts are now permitted to have a personal-branded blog. I don’t know if I was thrilled, but I did say “Excellent, the more analysts blogging the better.” Thus, John’s question.
Hmm, that is a good question. My initial thought was “well of course it’s better because blogging is good.” It took me about two seconds to discard that answer as glib and dumb. The real answer is […]