Comments on: What has the Ministry of Magic Quadrants got against me? http://jonontech.com/2009/08/10/what-has-the-ministry-of-magic-quadrants-got-against-me/ Confessions of a Paid Content Bastard Tue, 07 Sep 2010 16:58:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Jeffery Degeston http://jonontech.com/2009/08/10/what-has-the-ministry-of-magic-quadrants-got-against-me/#comment-10961 Jeffery Degeston Tue, 04 May 2010 16:17:24 +0000 http://jonontech.com/?p=1002#comment-10961 I've become an enthusiastic supporter of your site for some time and not really offered anything at all back, I really hope to alter that later on with more debate.Thanks for another new addition to your web site. I’ve become an enthusiastic supporter of your site for some time and not really offered anything at all back, I really hope to alter that later on with more debate.Thanks for another new addition to your web site.

]]> By: Jon Marks http://jonontech.com/2009/08/10/what-has-the-ministry-of-magic-quadrants-got-against-me/#comment-7451 Jon Marks Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:57:45 +0000 http://jonontech.com/?p=1002#comment-7451 EMC has finally given up on their current "WCM" offering and partnered with FatWire - <a href="http://www.cmswire.com/cms/web-cms/emc-replaces-their-wcm-with-fatwires-web-experience-management-006696.php" rel="nofollow">info here</a>. So Forrester had it right. EMC has finally given up on their current “WCM” offering and partnered with FatWire – info here.

So Forrester had it right.

]]> By: Jon Marks http://jonontech.com/2009/08/10/what-has-the-ministry-of-magic-quadrants-got-against-me/#comment-2425 Jon Marks Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:48:16 +0000 http://jonontech.com/?p=1002#comment-2425 Even better if it is a long wave :-) Forrester haven't done another Interactive Agencies wave in Europe since. So we're still on top. They did one this year in the US where our office their did pretty well. They're listed as Icon Nicholson on there. I do quite like the way Forrester rate sites. But the fact that the wave is based entirely on 2 *self-volunteered* projects is a bit odd. Even better if it is a long wave :-) Forrester haven’t done another Interactive Agencies wave in Europe since. So we’re still on top. They did one this year in the US where our office their did pretty well. They’re listed as Icon Nicholson on there.

I do quite like the way Forrester rate sites. But the fact that the wave is based entirely on 2 *self-volunteered* projects is a bit odd.

]]> By: Philippe Parker http://jonontech.com/2009/08/10/what-has-the-ministry-of-magic-quadrants-got-against-me/#comment-2424 Philippe Parker Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:32:50 +0000 http://jonontech.com/?p=1002#comment-2424 By the way, that applies even to digital agencies who find themselves on the crest of the wave! By the way, that applies even to digital agencies who find themselves on the crest of the wave!

]]> By: Philippe Parker http://jonontech.com/2009/08/10/what-has-the-ministry-of-magic-quadrants-got-against-me/#comment-2423 Philippe Parker Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:31:23 +0000 http://jonontech.com/?p=1002#comment-2423 Ok, so the vendors may not be paying for the evaluation, but they do pay fees to these firms. According to Theresa Regli, Gartner spends c. 70% of time advising vendors and investors, 30% of time advising buyers. Should clients have confidence in that? But my issue is that assessments are made based on a vanilla basis with little practical project or support experience. How many of these assessments are actually made by going to systems integrators who've had to work with these products, or to clients who've had a bad experience with them? Moreover, how much evaluation is done with the tools on the ground, rather than with the latest sandbox of the newest version that actually represents only 1% of the client base? When you're picking a CMS just try to find the one that's the right fit for your organisation, not someone else's. Ok, so the vendors may not be paying for the evaluation, but they do pay fees to these firms. According to Theresa Regli, Gartner spends c. 70% of time advising vendors and investors, 30% of time advising buyers. Should clients have confidence in that?
But my issue is that assessments are made based on a vanilla basis with little practical project or support experience. How many of these assessments are actually made by going to systems integrators who’ve had to work with these products, or to clients who’ve had a bad experience with them?
Moreover, how much evaluation is done with the tools on the ground, rather than with the latest sandbox of the newest version that actually represents only 1% of the client base?
When you’re picking a CMS just try to find the one that’s the right fit for your organisation, not someone else’s.

]]> By: Larry Perlstein http://jonontech.com/2009/08/10/what-has-the-ministry-of-magic-quadrants-got-against-me/#comment-2367 Larry Perlstein Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:09:01 +0000 http://jonontech.com/?p=1002#comment-2367 Hi Jon, Kevin's explanation is exactly right and I hope it puts to rest any perception of "sponsorships". I'm always happy to answer any questions ... larry.perlstein@gartner.com or 203-316-6024. Hi Jon, Kevin’s explanation is exactly right and I hope it puts to rest any perception of “sponsorships”. I’m always happy to answer any questions … larry.perlstein@gartner.com or 203-316-6024.

]]> By: Ian Truscott http://jonontech.com/2009/08/10/what-has-the-ministry-of-magic-quadrants-got-against-me/#comment-2354 Ian Truscott Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:22:04 +0000 http://jonontech.com/?p=1002#comment-2354 Ah.. just been pointed out to me that I've failed to type the URL correctly in the website link on my last comment. It's www.persuasivecontent.com and I am the VP, WCM Product Strategy at Alterian. Ah.. just been pointed out to me that I’ve failed to type the URL correctly in the website link on my last comment. It’s http://www.persuasivecontent.com and I am the VP, WCM Product Strategy at Alterian.

]]> By: Ian Truscott http://jonontech.com/2009/08/10/what-has-the-ministry-of-magic-quadrants-got-against-me/#comment-2330 Ian Truscott Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:56:31 +0000 http://jonontech.com/?p=1002#comment-2330 Hi Jon, As I have already said on Twitter, nice post and thank you for the mention. You’ve asked how we feel about being on the report, in the position we find ourselves – would it be better not to be included? This is consistent with feedback I have had, but when contrasted with the comments in the report like “This product remains a top-class WCM product and its impressive...etc etc”- that appear inconsistent with the bottom left position – we have to say that engagement with Gartner is valuable - providing folks take the time to read the report and glance beyond the headlines. In the interest of balance, the poor showing in the quadrant is apparently down to what they consider to be poor US visibility and the negative comments about strategy. These comments owe much to the lag to get the report published from the briefing and how much we were able to share at the time. Incidentally subsequent conversations where we have eased open the kimono (I believe that’s the custom - otherwise I looked pretty foolish) have been received very positively. On the MarketScope comment that was made last year, I feel the need to point out that ‘cautious’ came around the time of the Alterian acquisition and reflected what they considered to be risk to us as a standalone vendor. Anyway, super post and great debate – love the fact you attracted the attention of the “Gartner Ombudsman” - (isn't it great there jobs out there called that?)- and hope I have gone some way to answer your question! Cheers, Ian Hi Jon,

As I have already said on Twitter, nice post and thank you for the mention.

You’ve asked how we feel about being on the report, in the position we find ourselves – would it be better not to be included?

This is consistent with feedback I have had, but when contrasted with the comments in the report like “This product remains a top-class WCM product and its impressive…etc etc”- that appear inconsistent with the bottom left position – we have to say that engagement with Gartner is valuable – providing folks take the time to read the report and glance beyond the headlines.

In the interest of balance, the poor showing in the quadrant is apparently down to what they consider to be poor US visibility and the negative comments about strategy. These comments owe much to the lag to get the report published from the briefing and how much we were able to share at the time. Incidentally subsequent conversations where we have eased open the kimono (I believe that’s the custom – otherwise I looked pretty foolish) have been received very positively.

On the MarketScope comment that was made last year, I feel the need to point out that ‘cautious’ came around the time of the Alterian acquisition and reflected what they considered to be risk to us as a standalone vendor.

Anyway, super post and great debate – love the fact you attracted the attention of the “Gartner Ombudsman” – (isn’t it great there jobs out there called that?)- and hope I have gone some way to answer your question!

Cheers,

Ian

]]> By: Kevin Cochrane http://jonontech.com/2009/08/10/what-has-the-ministry-of-magic-quadrants-got-against-me/#comment-2329 Kevin Cochrane Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:28:34 +0000 http://jonontech.com/?p=1002#comment-2329 Oh, and final note on open source being excluded (aside from the obvious fact that at Day we see ourselves as a commercial vendor based on an open source core) ... read the full report where Gartner specifically mentions the criteria for inclusion and the list of open source vendors they evaled against those criteria. I wouldn't be surprised to see more open source vendors in next year, especially with vendors like Nuxeo and Jahia now entering the North American market (geographic reach is one criterion for inclusion). Good discussion. Oh, and final note on open source being excluded (aside from the obvious fact that at Day we see ourselves as a commercial vendor based on an open source core) … read the full report where Gartner specifically mentions the criteria for inclusion and the list of open source vendors they evaled against those criteria. I wouldn’t be surprised to see more open source vendors in next year, especially with vendors like Nuxeo and Jahia now entering the North American market (geographic reach is one criterion for inclusion). Good discussion.

]]> By: Kevin Cochrane http://jonontech.com/2009/08/10/what-has-the-ministry-of-magic-quadrants-got-against-me/#comment-2328 Kevin Cochrane Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:09:12 +0000 http://jonontech.com/?p=1002#comment-2328 Jon - actually, vendors don't pay Gartner to be included in the report. Gartner selects a list of vendors that it considers to be the top vendors in the field. They then invite those vendors to participate in the report. Regardless of how they rank, they fact that Gartner asked them to participate *at all* is a sign that they are amongst the top in their field. Gartner then evaluates in a multi-month process that takes in account more than just the vendors responses to a detailed set of questions. I'll leave it to Gartner to speak to any details, but having done many of these types of evals from different vendors, I can say that they analysis is not vendor-driven. Far from it. There is always the risk of being ranked low. Luckily at Day, we are quite pleased :-) You take the risk because even if you fare poorly in the overall quadrant, the fact that you are included at all is an important statement. It is better to be in the quadrant than not. Now, some have blogged about some of the criteria Gartner uses. And that's why we luckily all look at different types of sources and perspectives. But as a specific source, Gartner's - like CMS Watch and others - is not based on who paid to be included. That's just a vendors perspective. You fret about whether or not you'll be included, then you fret about where you place. It's only fun after the fact. And so for that reason, hats off to everyone in the report. Of course, do take a close look at that Day dot ... Jon – actually, vendors don’t pay Gartner to be included in the report. Gartner selects a list of vendors that it considers to be the top vendors in the field. They then invite those vendors to participate in the report. Regardless of how they rank, they fact that Gartner asked them to participate *at all* is a sign that they are amongst the top in their field. Gartner then evaluates in a multi-month process that takes in account more than just the vendors responses to a detailed set of questions. I’ll leave it to Gartner to speak to any details, but having done many of these types of evals from different vendors, I can say that they analysis is not vendor-driven. Far from it.

There is always the risk of being ranked low. Luckily at Day, we are quite pleased :-) You take the risk because even if you fare poorly in the overall quadrant, the fact that you are included at all is an important statement. It is better to be in the quadrant than not.

Now, some have blogged about some of the criteria Gartner uses. And that’s why we luckily all look at different types of sources and perspectives. But as a specific source, Gartner’s – like CMS Watch and others – is not based on who paid to be included.

That’s just a vendors perspective. You fret about whether or not you’ll be included, then you fret about where you place. It’s only fun after the fact. And so for that reason, hats off to everyone in the report. Of course, do take a close look at that Day dot …

]]>