<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Should we start listening to Gartner now?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.contenthere.net/2009/11/should-we-start-listening-to-gartner-now.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.contenthere.net/2009/11/should-we-start-listening-to-gartner-now.html</link>
	<description>Enter Content Here</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:28:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: seth</title>
		<link>http://www.contenthere.net/2009/11/should-we-start-listening-to-gartner-now.html/comment-page-1#comment-1617</link>
		<dc:creator>seth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:43:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.contenthere.net/?p=1280#comment-1617</guid>
		<description>You are right that, by volume, most of Gartner&#039;s subscribers are buyers but that does not mean that Gartner targets them as an audience or that the research helps them.  The problem with Gartner is that, even when the research is unbiased, it is too abstract to be actionable and support technology decisions.  A technology buyer should focus on his specific requirements, not the future of technology markets as Gartner sees it.  Case in point, in 2002 I lead a website development project for another large technology research firm and they insisted that their analysts drive the architectural choices.  Their recommendation was BroadVision as an application server and NorthernLight for search.  We were able to override the BroadVision recommendation but they won on NorthernLight.  As a result we had to do all these engineering gymnastics to do something as simple as return a paginated search result of research of research that the visitor bought subscriptions for.  

Gartner may be useful for high level strategy (like should we encourage staff to maintain internal blogs for knowledge sharing? or should we pay attention to Twitter?) but not for technology platform selection guidance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are right that, by volume, most of Gartner&#8217;s subscribers are buyers but that does not mean that Gartner targets them as an audience or that the research helps them.  The problem with Gartner is that, even when the research is unbiased, it is too abstract to be actionable and support technology decisions.  A technology buyer should focus on his specific requirements, not the future of technology markets as Gartner sees it.  Case in point, in 2002 I lead a website development project for another large technology research firm and they insisted that their analysts drive the architectural choices.  Their recommendation was BroadVision as an application server and NorthernLight for search.  We were able to override the BroadVision recommendation but they won on NorthernLight.  As a result we had to do all these engineering gymnastics to do something as simple as return a paginated search result of research of research that the visitor bought subscriptions for.  </p>
<p>Gartner may be useful for high level strategy (like should we encourage staff to maintain internal blogs for knowledge sharing? or should we pay attention to Twitter?) but not for technology platform selection guidance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Bruce</title>
		<link>http://www.contenthere.net/2009/11/should-we-start-listening-to-gartner-now.html/comment-page-1#comment-1616</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Bruce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:28:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.contenthere.net/?p=1280#comment-1616</guid>
		<description>Matt is right; Gartner is doing a much better job covering the OS world. But on some of the other points you make I disagree: most of Gartner&#039;s subscribers are not vendors, but enterprise buyers of technology; Gartner have always covered OS; and their focus is very much on the suitability of technology for the buyer, not just the market share dynamics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt is right; Gartner is doing a much better job covering the OS world. But on some of the other points you make I disagree: most of Gartner&#8217;s subscribers are not vendors, but enterprise buyers of technology; Gartner have always covered OS; and their focus is very much on the suitability of technology for the buyer, not just the market share dynamics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: carol hagen</title>
		<link>http://www.contenthere.net/2009/11/should-we-start-listening-to-gartner-now.html/comment-page-1#comment-1601</link>
		<dc:creator>carol hagen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:04:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.contenthere.net/?p=1280#comment-1601</guid>
		<description>Listening to Gartner now is like reading the newspaper, yesterday&#039;s news.  If you want to understand what&#039;s happening and why open source and Free really work for business I would tell you to listen to the audio book 
Free:The Future of a Radical Price available at http://www.hyperionbooks.com/free</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Listening to Gartner now is like reading the newspaper, yesterday&#8217;s news.  If you want to understand what&#8217;s happening and why open source and Free really work for business I would tell you to listen to the audio book<br />
Free:The Future of a Radical Price available at <a href="http://www.hyperionbooks.com/free" rel="nofollow">http://www.hyperionbooks.com/free</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
