Skip Links

Network World

  • Social Web 
  • Email 
  • Close

The Gartner Magic Quadrant double standards, plus how to properly read the MQ

Vendors mock the MQ for being superficial and meaningless but crow about it if they're featured
Security: Identity Management Alert By Dave Kearns , Network World , 09/10/2008
Kearns
Sign up for this newsletter now!

Dave Kearns provides the information you need to evaluate, install and maintain your corporate identity management system.

  • Share/Email
  • Comment
  • Print

It never fails. Each year, at events like Digital ID World that's happening this week, I hear, privately, from a number of vendors - who don't wish to be quoted - about how superficial and meaningless are the Gartner Group's "Magic Quadrant" proclamations. I then get a press release from these same vendors trumpeting their placement in one quadrant or another.

If you’ve never read a “Magic Quadrant” document, browse here and take a look. Especially look at the disclaimer at the bottom:

“The Magic Quadrant is a graphical representation of a marketplace at and for a specific time period. It depicts Gartner’s analysis of how certain vendors measure against criteria for that marketplace, as defined by Gartner. Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in the Magic Quadrant, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors placed in the ‘Leaders’ quadrant. The Magic Quadrant is intended solely as a research tool, and is not meant to be a specific guide to action.”

While Gartner may advise clients not “…to select only those vendors placed in the ‘Leaders’ quadrant,” the vendors themselves seem to grade each other based on how close to the top right corner they can get. Not only do they perceive the “Leaders” quadrant as the place for winners, but think the gold medal goes to the one highest and furthest to the right. Yet the criteria for placement does not support that presumption. For example, a couple of years ago, Thor Technologies’ provisioning product ranked third or fourth (depending on how you read the chart). Once it was acquired by Oracle, however, it quickly jumped to second and then “first” (depending on how you view it) with little change except for the acquisition. The major differences appeared to be a larger sales force and a “more complete” identity management line (when coupled with the rest of Oracle’s offerings). But it was still the same product!

Unfortunately for you, your CxOs will be reading the report – and the press releases – and urge you to choose the “high and wide” selection rather than the one which is a best fit for your circumstances. Forewarned is forearmed: print out the disclaimer – in 14 point type – and have it ready to show to any CxO who wants to talk about the “Leaders” quadrant. Better yet put it in language they’ll understand – make it a PowerPoint slide!

Dave Kearns is a consultant and editor of IdM, the Journal of Identity Management.

  • Share/Email
  • Comment
  • Print
Partner Content

Brilliantly simple security and control solutions for email, web and endpoint

www.sophos.com

Stopping data leakage

Learn how to exploit your current security investment to control the information that flows into, through and out of your network.

Download the white paper.

Why detection rates aren't enough

Evaluating endpoint security products is a time-consuming and daunting task. Learn the six critical questions you need to ask prospective vendors to get the right endpoint solution.

Download the white paper.

Applications: taking back control

Employees installing unauthorized applications is a growing threat to business security and productivity. Cost-effectively reduce this threat by integrating control into your malware protection.

Learn more today.

Comments (8)
Login
Forgot your account info?

Oracle- ThorBy Allan Milgate on September 11, 2008, 1:22 amI 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...

Reply | Read entire comment

'While "viability" may haveBy Anon on September 10, 2008, 5:45 pm'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...

Reply | Read entire comment

Oracle-ThorBy Dave Kearns on September 10, 2008, 4:08 pmKevin 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...

Reply | Read entire comment

Well Duh...By Anonymous on September 10, 2008, 3:54 pmWell, 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...

Reply | Read entire comment

Thor vs. OracleBy kpm on September 10, 2008, 3:15 pmDave, 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...

Reply | Read entire comment

View all comments

Add comment
Anonymous comments subject to approval. Register here for member benefits.
Have a NetworkWorld account? Log in here. Register now for a free account.

Videos

rssRss Feed