Resistance is ... umm ... fertile
There are a few interesting discussion threads at the Armageddon blog and at GartnerWatch. Being a Gartner analyst, I thought why not disecting some of the comments and claims there. Here we go...
First, I'm delighted that at least one Gartner Analyst is working well with Gartner Consulting
Good observation. I'm the only analyst that does that. Or could it be, that we fail to inform the world that someone from the research organization has worked with a peer from the consulting organization?
Also, I'm delighted myself that Joe Guralnick from Mountain View signs his postings with his full name. I'm sure it's pure coincidence that there is no J Guralnick registered anywhere in Northern California.
However, until we hear this more broadly from other Gartner analysts the sentiment remains
You do want analysts to debrief you on their consulting engagements? Come on. I'm curious what the point here really is. Some analysts work with Consulting, others don't, and it's independent of the company.
For eons the analyts have held the consultants in low esteem so puhleeeese let's see some tangible evidence of change before changing our minds.
I'm sure there are analysts like that. Always were, always will be. Why? Because we're dealing with people here (yes, I know it's hard to believe, drones like myself belong to that species, too). Anyway, to generalize that all analysts don't like consultants, is complete baloney.
Also, regarding anonymity (or hiding behind a fence as Andy calls it) the reason is simple and I suspect he knows it.
Yes, I do: anonymous posters fear the consequences and don't accept responsibility.
The reason is that no AR person wants to risk the personal and business risk of publicly criticising the Borg (Andy, thanks for the correction by the way)
Exactly. However, nobody takes anonymous postings half-serious, even if the content was fair. Of course, there is also the other option that those anonymous postings (which are mostly negative in tone) are really not from an AR person, but Gartner's competitors. Far fetched? ... oh, and you're welcome.
The key point to my mind is that Gartner has no real interest in open debate - if they did they would have a public forum.
Who in Gartner are you talking about? Analysts? Peter? Gene? Also, what do you mean by "open"? Open as in "Gartner is in the open, and the rest hides behind the bushes again"? That's what we have already. Lastly, what would you like to debate, particularly something that is suitable for a public forum? You surely can't expect Gartner to discuss internal issues, or would you expect DaimlerChrysler to share details about the new S-class in a public forum.
Gartner blogs are all moderated (censored?) so that doesn't count.
Uh. Every blog is moderated by its respective owner. In fact, yours, too. What kind of blog would you rather have, maintained by the United Nations? And censored? Again, another unsubstantiated claim. Have you seen any postings or comments removed from any Gartner blog? By the way, Joe, your own blog doesn't even allow attaching comments to your posts. Isn't that some passive form of censorship?
Bottom line: I believe Gartner would have a strong interest in talking about real issues, but nobody spends any time discussing platitudes and cliches.
Signing off.
Borg Drone #26022
3 Comments:
Just a few comments on your comments on our posts...
The first one is about the industry. We know, you know. It's incestuous and we have a lot of good reliable sources and in addition we get a lot of un-sollicited tips. And the analysts often forget that vendors have also a relationship with end-users...
We thus stand by our statement that in Gartner consulting and analysis is not well joined up. Take it as an opportunity for improvement, yesterday's call was a step in the right direction.
On anonymity, we think it's a necessary evil to protect our independence.
I know that you know that I know. And I agree it's incestuous, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you Armageddon folks are ex-analysts.
How could an analyst forget that vendors have relationships with users, that is, their customers? Sounds almost funny to me, because that's what we keep asking for: end-user references.
>> stand by our statement that in Gartner consulting and analysis is not well joined up <<
Oh well. Whatever.
>> Take it as an opportunity for improvement, yesterday's call was a step in the right direction.<<
There is always room for improvement, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't worry about it. Curious about "yesterday's call"... you were on a call with me?
>> On anonymity, we think it's a necessary evil to protect our independence.<<
That's a strange statement. What kind of independence would that be? A vendor's AR person is not independent, how would that work?
Andy, there's a fundamental disconnect here. You are mistaken in thinking that we are former analysts. I don't know all the people involved in ARmaddeggon, but I know it's not true of the group I know. The reality is that we are scared of Gartner's power over us. The fear of a reaction from you and your colleagues is real. Consider this: you've been hunting down Joe G though public records! We feel it necessary to operate in a cell structure.
You demand that Joe and the others come out into the open and 'accept the consequences'. The consequences will friction between our employers and Gartner: our sackings would be the oil to soothe the friction.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home