Gartner, A Former Gartner Person, and Ego
May 14, 2012
Computerworld is supposed to be about computers. Now I don’t think too much about Computerworld era computers any more. I think that the owner of Computerworld was gung ho on Verity search once. That told me a great deal about Computerworld’s parent company.
The story “Can a New Analyst Firm Take Down Gartner?” Wow. Quite an amazing write up. Sprawled across three pages, the story is written by a person about whom I know quite a lot after reading the “real” news in Computerworld; for example:
- The author of the story is Rob Enderle who is a big wheel and apparently the brains behind the Enderle Group.
- Mr. Enderle worked at Forrester (an azure chip outfit explaining what’s what in all things related to anything that compute), Giga Information Group (ditto the Forrester services), and a profession who has “worked for” IBM. He worked on audits, competitive analysis, marketing, finance, and security.
- Mr. Enderle is a TV talent type for CNBC, Fox (a Murdoch “real” journalism outfit), Bloomberg, and NPR.
- Mr. Enderle “knows” Gideon Gartner, the brains behind the Gartner we know and love today as a publicly traded azure chip consulting firm.
- Mr. Enderle “helped found” the Giga Information Group.
- Mr. Enderle knows that “line management…doesn’t listen to Gartner and, for that matter, often doesn’t listen to IT either.”
There are other biographical nuggets in the write up too. Mr. Enderle “knows” Gideon Gartner. Be still my heart!
The main point is that an outfit involved in social CRM could—hypothetically and mostly without factual basis—just might be able to “take down Gartner.”
Yowza.
What does the kitty see when it looks in the mirror? A house pet or a wild lion?
The super hero in this story is a company called Ombud, which I assume is shorthand for ombudsman, a full time equivalent who is supposed to be a pair of ears with moist eyes and a warm nature able to solve a customer’s problem. I don’t know any ombudsmen, however. Those characteristics often match up with social workers in my experience.
There were several overt main points in the story about Ombud which I found more like search engine optimization and ego marketing. For instance:
I learned:
Gartner Group was conceived well before social networking, at a time when there not only was no Internet but no PCs. It seemed that it wouldn’t be long before someone would figure out how to blend experts, practitioners and vendors into a service that would be cheaper, more current and more focused on the unique needs of an individual company, thus providing more real value (regardless of price) than the older model.
Er, so what? Ombud is a Web site for a company which offers the same pay to play information which comes from most azure chip and blue chip consulting firms. Check ‘em out yourself at www.ombud.com.
Second, unlike Gartner and I assume any other consulting outfit, Ombud sells “access to RFPs which users create and vendors bid on.” I think the idea is that one can eliminate intermediaries, post a request for work, get bids, and pick a vendor. The organization just goes direct. I know how poorly the traditional procurement process works, but I am sure that a Fortune 50 company will experiment with Ombud. Anything that cuts the burdensome fees imposed by azure chip consultants is a good thing for most chief financial officers.
Third, the senior management of Ombud comes from IBM, which Mr. Enderle helpfully points out he was working on Big Blue’s audits, competitive analysis, marketing, finance, and security projects.
Fourth, Gartner, according to Mr. Enderle, talks to customers. But Gartner—azure chip outfit that it is—not Johnny on the spot. He asserts about Gartner:
Gartner talks to lots of customers. The issue is that this communication seldom happens in a timely manner and does not involve line management, which is often driving a firm’s buying decision. In short, Gartner is often talking to the wrong person in the customer account. A service leveraging LinkedIn could get to the critical decision makers that Gartner is missing and get them more timely feedback.
Hmm. A consulting firm which doesn’t listen? Interesting. Well, that inability to hop to has opened the door to Ombud. Mr. Enderle says:
I do think Ombud is on to something really interesting. If you are looking to find out more about a particular product or service, then you may find an actual user to be more knowledgeable than any analyst. In any case, this is a resource to consider and, at least for now, the only cost is your time-and, while you won’t need to get budget approval to use it, finding the spare time could be almost as daunting a task.
What’s this story “about”?
I think this story strikes me this way (your mileage may vary but I hope not too much):
- Computerworld wanted a write up about digital Gerson Lehrman Group, a consulting services which is putting the hurt on quite a few low level, azure chip (mid tier), and blue chip firms. GLG is not perfect, but it offers a different business model and a combination of C+ online services and direct access to humans who are supposed to be experts. Computerworld’s running this story shows a drop off in the editorial screening process. Perhaps this was due to vacations, headcount reductions, or “we’re so darned busy” type explanations from poobahs who are “real” journalists. Who knows?
- The article seems to be hell bent on planting some poison ivy in the Gartner garden. This type of “take down Gartner” approach is silly. Publicly traded firms don’t get taken down by a start up. Publicly traded companies get taken down by missteps and then start ups exploit those opportunities, thrive and grow. The GLG operations and similar types of “cafeteria style access to experts” are the real threat to traditional consulting. Something else is at work, and I think there must have been some interesting interactions between Mr. Enderle and certain consulting firms. Otherwise, why suggest a start up can take down a reasonably successful azure chip outfit. Left on its own Gartner is its own worst enemy, not Ombud.
- The articles is autobiographical. In fact, the information about Ombud, how it performs its magic, the details about its funding are essentially ignored. The meat is the information about Mr. Enderle’s work experience, his interaction with several azure chip outfits, and his Swiss Army knife value to IBM.
Net net. Sure, check out Ombud. Ignore the crazy buzzwords. Then check out cafeteria style consulting firms. By the time you finish, maybe Gartner Group will acquire Ombud or do the “real” innovator’s trick. Pull a me-too. In the meantime, clip and save this Computerworld write up. It marks a turning point in “real” technology journalism. The story as marketing collateral.
Stephen E Arnold, May 14, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Comments
One Response to “Gartner, A Former Gartner Person, and Ego”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
Bravo. The big two (Gartner/Forrester) have nothing to fear from us ankle biters – only from the changing way that buyers expect to consume product/market information.
When I returned to consulting from the software world, I fielded quite a few GLG referral sessions. I think that the model has validitiy for specific subject matter expertise, but does not really support longer term relationships for real strategic insight. Good for what it does, but I do not see it as a threat to traditional analyst firms.
As for editorial standards, I am afraid that product marketing groups have long since dominated editorial and content guidelines in the tech markets. Look up the Wikipedia definition of ‘white paper’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_paper for a great explanation of the commercialization of supposedly academic content.
In the eDiscovery market, we are facing a terrible trend where marketing groups are ‘interpreting’ rulings and transcripts from active cases to fit their product agenda in ways that are actually impacting the case itself. Law firms and traditional eDiscovery service providers understand their obligations to protect the confidentiality and interests of their clients, but too many software providers just don’t seem to understand the potential impact of their marketing efforts. Or maybe they do understand it and just don’t care what happens to their customers. Sad.
Thanks for calling this as you see it.
Greg Buckles – working analyst – edjgroupinc.com