James McGovern calls for a better model for industry analysis. And no he is not a nom de plume Scottish version of me… He says:
Was thinking about if I ever became an industry analyst and could throw my integrity out the window, I could give the typical defense which would go something like “our enterprise clients are reluctant to commit mission-critical applications to untried and untested – and most importantly, unsupported software” and there is, it should be said, a kernel of truth in that respect.
Another perspective is that analysts should publish more detailed views and embrace open source to no less a degree than commercial ISVs such as IBM, Microsoft, Sun and Oracle.
James is good enough to say some nice things about RedMonk and our approach and how we’re addressing some of his concerns.
The guys over at RedMonk not only report on open source products, but actually have done their part to contribute to it. Check out one of their papers they contributed to the community free of charge on Compliance Oriented Architecture.
Maybe the next step is to get several analysts who blog to expose themselves to a vocal audience. Maybe they could ping this entry’s trackback and let the dialog begin. Online audiences routinely discuss, debate and refute industry analyst research – and in a few cases, specific industry analysts.
He asks for trackbacks from interested parties. well i am one. You know what? I would be more than proud to call Hartford a client. If you want to discuss a relationship, open source or otherwise, just say the word James. And you know what – i like Kungfu movies too – Jet Li’s Legend series is probably my favourite. My bet is on Burton Group joining the conversation.
Finally – tell me more about LifeRay and Drools.
Do you use Bugzilla?
James McGovern says:
February 19, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Glad you are game for continuing the dialog. I was recently in a meeting with a large software vendor and they stated that the way analysts come up with market share is to simply ask them for number of installs. Analysts do not attempt to validate this number.
This brings into question how analysts themselves collect their own research and the holes (intentional) they leave. Readers need to make informed decisions on their business. I am saying that the vast majority of enterprises are making it on incomplete information.
Since the vendor I was talking to was in the portal space, I felt that that analysts are missing an opportunity to actually figure out real market share.
Each portal has a unique URL signature which means you can use search engines such as google to find the patterns. It becomes a simple count.
Of course this isn’t scientific. Neither are current information that is published in the media today. Kinda like me saying that 100% of the people who live in Connecticut that blog on Saturday Morning’s are absolutely brilliant.
The point is that it is something that is not hidden. The public has no opportunity to actually review the research conducted within the industry analysts space but can view my methodology outlined in my blog for themselves. Would like to see analysts read all my comments on open source and their responsibility especially in the portal space. The proposed approach is 100% transparent. Readers can interpret however they wish.
James McGovern says:
February 20, 2005 at 11:13 pm
Would be great for you to talk about other industry practices that are somewhat questionable such as software companies paying for briefings. I know of two different companies with compelling value propositions but no money to pay analyst fees at this time. Check out: http://www.powerobject.com and http://www.lozoic.com
As far as becoming a customer, this is easy. Could use a “complete” report on the BPM space as well as a report on state of corporate America when it comes to security architecture (different from policies, products, procedures, methodologies, frameworks, etc)
James Governor says:
February 28, 2005 at 2:11 pm
is that all you need? i will get these done this afternoon… 🙂
paying for briefings – screw that! tell the guys to give us a call. briefings are free. and we also give feedback during briefings – anyone that has an interaction with RedMonk should come away with an interesting insight, whether they pay or not.
pay for briefings – that model is so horribly fugly.
more specifics on BPM? it is an INCREDIBLY busy space and we dont usually work on functional point to point comparisons.
security architecture – plenty of potential value there. but we should talk about how to drive that conversation in a way that can drive a substantive snapshot.