Due to a highly volatile marketplace, Gartner (, ) specifically advises that you avoid comparing vendor placement in prior years, but it's still exciting to see who made the cut in the Magic Quadrant this time around.Leaders include, and, while players like, and sit in the other three brackets. Observe:Gartner ECM Magic Quadrant The MarketIf you're a regular around these parts then you probably know that has somehow flourished during these tough economic times. According to the analysts at Gartner, this strange success story can be attributed to three drivers:. We're up to our necks in choices and with each release it seems the content is becoming more complex. Volume and complexity are stimulants for concern and investment. Heavy competition means ever-changing price points. According to Gartner, pressure from open-source, 'stack' or suite vendors has driven the price per seat in proposals down to discount level, resulting in higher demand.
Often no single person controls the budget for all of an organization's ECM components and solutions, so point purchases remain common. These are often for independent projects whose business sponsors have a single return on investment (ROI) target.It also helps that a reported 80% of enterprise content is unstructured, and the need to manage the risks associated with that mountain of information requires a lot of focus. Accordingly, each vendor in Gartner's quadrant was evaluated for their ability to execute and their completeness of vision. Heavily weighted criteria included overall viability, customer experience, product/service and offering strategy. Happy to make it big time, VP of Product Management, Andy MacMillan, spoke words that could probably be appropriately applied to the solutions from the other leaders: 'We believe Gartner's recognition of Oracle as a Leader in Enterprise Content Management is a reflection of our continued commitment to simplify content management for all users and to integrate content management with business processes that drive organizational success.' The Future is NowLike we said, the market is a highly volatile place right now. There's been an increasing number of spikes in realizations around suite functionality, process control, etc.
And because of these fast-paced changes and turnovers, Gartner insists that now is the time for organizations to re-evaluate their content architecture-especially those that haven't done so in the last 5 years.Solutions from vendors such as Oracle and Microsoft are beginning to look and act a lot like end-to-end problem solvers, though each still has its drawbacks. In fact, Gartner advises against going with a vendor simply because it's in the Leader section, as 'all selections should be buyer-specific, and vendors from the Challengers, Niche Players or Visionaries quadrants may be better matches for your business goals and solution requirements.' Use the quadrant for insight to how the ECM market is currently reacting to the changing tides, and vendors' current product offerings and overall strategies.Head over to the full review for more detailed information, including the pros and cons of each vendor according to Gartner.
Source:Gartner will seek to dismiss claims by ZL Technologies, based in San Jose, CA, that the use of it’s proprietary “Magic Quadrant” is misleading and favors large vendors.On Friday October 23, Gartner is seeking the dismissal of ZL’s complaint on First Amendment grounds.Dennis Howlett, over at ZDNet writes:ZL points up some uncomfortable assertions. Even if it lucks out in court it will have been successful in drawing attention to important issues.I spend a lot of time talking to other so-called analysts.
Gartner Magic Quadrant Database
Almost to a man/woman (but not entirely) they are 70-80% in the pay of the vendor community. Many believe they are independent. However when I ask who really pays the bills they go silent. Shout all you like about defending your independence but at the end of the day? Show me the money.Gartner’s Magic Quadrant has been very successful for the market research and analyst firm. It has been widely adopted as a way to define the position of companies and their products, within their sectors.Companies that appear in the top right hand quadrant are considered the best positioned, the higher the position the better.ZL Technologies provides email and file archiving for corporations.
It’s claims are:– Gartner’s use of their proprietary “Magic Quadrant” is misleading and favors large vendors with large sales and marketing budgets over smaller innovators such as ZL that have developed higher performing products.– The complaint alleges: defamation; trade libel; false advertising; unfair competition; and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.– Fair Disclosure on Conflicts of Interest – Gartner generates its revenues from payments made by the same vendors whose products it evaluates. Similar to the new rules now being imposed on financial ratings agencies on Wall Street, Gartner should be required to disclose the revenues received from the vendors it ranks.– Fair Disclosure on Evaluation Scores – The tech industry would benefit if Gartner were required to disclose more data in its evaluation process and disclose component scores so vendors know exactly where they are lacking and by how much and take corrective action. Currently, there is zero disclosure, which can lead to arbitrary placement, with no recourse and no basis for appeal.– Better Oversight –Gartner currently has an employee act as ombudsman to handle disagreements. The conflict of interest is self-evident in the way ZL’s concerns were summarily dismissed with little supporting evidence. There is a crying need to establish an impartial ombudsman similar to those found in public media, in order to ensure purchasers that they are receiving impartial analysis.The legal documents are here:Gartner and other analyst and market research firms have long denied that their analysis is biased by their client base.
2009 Gartner Magic Quadrant Ecm Pdf Download
On December 4, 2009, ZL Technologies filed an amended complaint against Gartner, Inc. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Court granted ZL the opportunity to clarify and augment our earlier allegations of defamation and trade libel.In the first round of ZL’s legal dispute with Gartner, Gartner argued to the Court that its rankings and other statements in the proprietary “Magic Quadrant Reports” are merely opinions that are not based upon fact, and that they are understood as such by the readers of those reports. However, Gartner’s past statements in marketing materials, white papers, blogs and even the Magic Quadrant Reports themselves, assert that their research and analysts’ opinions are based on a body of facts compiled through what is asserted to be a rigorous process.The amended complaint clarifies ZL’s contentions about the inaccuracy of Gartner’s reports, the inherent conflict of interest arising out of Gartner’s voluminous business with the vendors it reviews, and its subsequent bias towards large and established vendors. The amended complaint also adds new detail about Gartner’s repeated claims that its research is based on objective fact—a position exactly opposite to the stance forwarded by Gartner in court.While this case is focused on ZL’s dispute with Gartner over the erroneous statements in Gartner’s publications, the issues here also implicate Gartner’s larger business model. Gartner plainly admits that it attempts to leverage value from its largest clients, many of whom are also vendors covered in the company’s research. ZL’s legal filings describe how that business model causes Gartner to favor those large companies at the expense of identifying the best technologies, thus misleading not just the vendors who are inaccurately reviewed by Gartner, but the consumers who base their IT purchasing decisions on Gartner’s biased research.ZL is seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages from Gartner.The amended complaint can be found here:Comment by — 2009/12/08 @.