My company evaluated Thor before the acquisition. At the time, it had a strong provisioning engine, idiosyncratic interface, and questionable support due to the size of the company. The support issue was our biggest concern -- did we want to bet millions of dollars on a small company's ability to support a rapidly expanding customer base? The Oracle acquisition resolved that concern. So, IMO, Gartner was right on target ... the product became more viable after the acquisition, even though its core functionality remained unchanged.
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
Thor vs. Oracle
Dave,
I am with Oracle and focused on IDM, so I couldn't help but comment.
First of all, I entirely agree with the comment above that the question of company viability was a valid one with Thor which went away with Oracle, so that naturally did make the product a better choice post acquisition. Having been with another small player in the space in those early years - Business Layers - I know only too well how much company viability concerned our customers. I also believe that the Thor product did become stronger when combined into a suite offering.
However, I think it's valid to also wonder about your Thor/Oracle comments on 9/10/08, when Oracle acquired Thor in November of 2005, nearly three years ago. While you are correct that the product didn't improve as a standalone product on the very day that Oracle bought Thor, we like to think that we have made significant improvements since, among them the Attestation/Recertification capabilities, our vastly improved self-service capabilities, a WS-SPML Interface, the Generic Technology Connector, Identity Reconciliation and Rogue/Orphan Account Management, and 35+ out of the box audit and compliance reports.
We haven't been sitting on our hands since November of 2005, as Gartner has correctly pointed out.
Kevin Moulton
Senior Sales Consulting Manager
Oracle Corporation
Thor Vs Oracle
You seem to be saying that Oracle Identity Manager 2008 and Xellerate 2006 should score identically on a Gartner Magic Quadrant? Not even close. The current version is far better and is further boosted by the othre Oracle identity products - OVD, ORM, OAM, OAAM, OACG, etc.
Oracle-Thor
Kevin et al -
I wasn't comparing the 2006 xCellerate with the 2008 OIM at all - the reference was to the first MQ that came out after the acquisition compared to the one immediately preceding. The product was the same - no new releases had occurred. The integration was exactly the same. The only difference was the name of the product!
While "viability" may have entered into the equation, it's a very amorphous quality and hardly worth the major jump the product took in the MQ.
Today's provisioning product is significantly better, if only because of better integration. But that wasn't the point I wanted to make.
'While "viability" may have
'While "viability" may have entered into the equation, it's a very amorphous quality and hardly worth the major jump the product took in the MQ.'
Dave, you are completely, totally, and unequivocally missing the point. "Viability" is *not* an amorphous quality, and *does* merit a major jump in the Magic Quadrant.
Why? Because user provisioning is about workflow and incorporation into existing business processes. You don't (or shouldn't) expect a user provisioning product to be plug-and-play; implementations take time and require customization. To me, this suggests two things: 1) functionality differences across products are perhaps less important, because functionality will be addressed through development of workflow; and 2) given the complexity of implementation, you had better select a product that is backed by adequate technical resources and a company that will still be in business next week.
Stated another way, rankings like the Magic Quadrant aren't just about functionality, they're intended to guide decision makers in making prudent investments. As heretical as this may sound, I'd rather go with a solid product backed by a capable vendor than a technically superior product from a company that might not be able to provide me with the consulting resources I need to get it implemented or the level of tech support response I need in an emergency. I think the Gartner rankings try to reflect that viewpoint.
Oracle- Thor
I do agree with your point about the product, Dave.
However I think the "ability to execute" doesn't evaluate the product so much as the company. Gartner defines "ability to execute" in great detail and Kevin Moulton of Oracle adds to that.
It is worth noting that the MQ Diagram doesn't actually list the products -- it lists the suppliers!
That fact alone explains why Microsoft makes it into the Challengers quadrant when their products should only be in the Niche Players quadrant.
Allan Milgate
It is Gartner, not Gartner Group ...
You should have interviewed someone at Gartner
Well Duh...
Well, OF COURSE vendors are going to trumpet good performances! What the heck did you expect, Dave? (For that matter, why do you think vendors spend time and money currying your favor?) Despite whatever disclaimers Gartner puts on the document, Gartner MQs have a significant impact on customers forming their vendor short lists. Every vendor hates them for reasons that range from completely legitimate (very inconsistent application of criteria) to just whining (the emphasis Gartner puts on customer references). Customers love them because it provides some CYA in the form of a supposedly objective evaluation.
Post new comment