Ignore Gartner

If you are spending lots of money you are doing the wrong thing anyway!

[Update - ignore Silicon's sloppy journalism and read the actual reports! Thanks Ed]

Comments

[Jevon]

I think you mis-linked

[Euan Semple]

I did - thanks.

[Alek Lotoczko]

So, while the IT department swallows Gartner's recommendation to "think carefully before committing to expensive social-networking white elephants" they gradually loose out, in terms of control and influence, as their customers in the business departments do it anyway via low cost SaaS solutions and/or open source software on lap-top servers under the desk!

[Jon Husband]

Craziness ...

but it makes sense when you think of the "buying channels" and the people in client orgs to whom Gartner analysts and consultants sell.

[Constantin K. - Firebrand Architect™]

Both Gartner and Forrester provide an additional level of insight that should be used in making decisions. Their reports are a good place to start, but once the choice of possible candidates narrows down to 3 or 4 the time comes to create a set of core test scenarios and get dirty in testing out the capabilities of the select candidates through highly targeted proofs of concept.

I wrote about this subject matter in this post:
http://www.softwarearchitectures.com/blog/2007/12/selecting-cots-software-under-pressure.html

Constantin K.
Firebrand Architect™
www.SoftwareArchitectures.com

[Craig Brown]

Somehow this fails to buzz me.

It might be that I am tired.

It might be that consultants warnings to think before committing are so -- what's the word? --- hang on --- checking social disctionary site --- just one more minute --- ahh, got it --- Vanilla Ice.

[Johnnie Moore]

Your post is a pithy as Gartner's pronouncement is er... checking my dictionary for a good word... portentous.

And you're dead right about spending lots of money.

[Truthiness]

The blogosphere is reacting to a completely distorted view of what the Gartner report actually says. The report is actually positive rather than negative, and points out some pitfalls to avoid for organizations that have chosen to engage in enterprise social computing.

[Euan Semple]

I added the update because the original quoted source wasn't a fair reflection of what Gartner was saying. I left the post up because I still believe that engaging in social computing can cost less than paying for Gartner reports.

[Ben Tremblay]

The InformationWeek article I'm reading (dead-tree version; no URL) explores how up-take is slowed by CEOs even if/when CTO/CIO buy-in.
Recalling how I once needed to do R&D document change management in a CAD department where the head draftsman had 0.00 computer experience (He was a great mgr and a fine craftsman.) I wonder if the lack of conviction arises from the absence of real-life material to make for compelling metaphors ... the sales pitch sounds hollow.

[Euan Semple]

I think the risk is over selling in the first place. One of the reasons I believe we got as far as we did at the BBC was that we let it creep up on people rather than ramming it down their throats. There is a lot in social computing to threaten the status quo and this is one of the biggest hurdles to be overcome.

[Rex Lee]

In a way, this whole episode demonstrates the power of social media. An individual that solely relied on (and trusted) the ZDnet's article would have been led down one path... However, the conversation that is enabled through blogs, has provided emergent clarification, and varying perspectives for a richer base of insight in the end.