I generally dislike the “map of the market” approach to describing a software market because the actual use of software is too specific to be generalized into abstract dimensions like “high and low end” or “innovative.” However, during a recent Content Here leadership offsite (OK, I went on a bike ride), I was thinking about Content Here’s positioning in the marketplace and I found a picture to be quite helpful. This is what I came up with (click on the image for a larger view). 
The primary point of the diagram is to show that consumers enter the information marketplace with different types of questions and information providers offer different types of answers. The intent of the question appears on a continuum that ranges from problem focused to solution focused. Technology buyers are focused on their business problems. As you progress towards the “problem” end of the spectrum, the questions get more specific and require intimate knowledge of the context and domain to answer. On the other end of the spectrum, the consumers (software vendors and investors) are trying to understand trends that will inform a business strategy for managing (or investing in) a solution. The information on the solution side gets very abstract and speculative because the solutions themselves are designed to be re-usable across many different kinds of problems and software companies need to build products that will be sold in the future. In the center of the spectrum is where the interests of the buyers and sellers converge. Here the buyers are thinking a little beyond the specific problems they are trying to solve today to where they need to be in five years. Here vendors are thinking beyond how their solution measures up today to what buyers need going forward.
All of these questions are important and the marketplace for answers has evolved to answer them. On the sellers side of the diagram, you have the major analyst firms who primarily serve the technology vendors. Their information can also useful to the CIO that is trying to understand trends but it will not be useful for a decision faced today. I didn’t put too much thought into the positions of the “sell-side” analysts on the right side of the diagram. I would love input here.
I am more interested in the left side of the diagram — in particular, where Content Here is focused. My unofficial tag line for Content Here is “Content Here helps technology buyers be awesome at making decisions” (format borrowed from the Joel on Software article: “Figuring out what your company is all about”). Content Here tries to help client’s answer the questions of what technology to buy and what do to with it. To play this role, I need a deep understanding of how the various technology products work — but not as deep as a systems integrator that specializes in that technology or the software vendor’s technical support. Consequently, my reports are very technical compared to other analyst reports. I tend not to go as broad as CMS Watch because I stop keeping up with a product once I realize it is not relevant to my potential client base. Only when I hear that something has changed with the product do I check back (and this is why I don’t publish a list of technologies that I follow or don’t follow). Most importantly, I need to be able to rapidly discover a client’s requirements through an efficient consultative process.
This hybrid approach puts Content Here in between a systems integrator and an analyst company in terms of detail. I am not surprised by low number of competitors because this is a hard place to be. I need to dig into the many technologies I cover by building prototypes and talking with implementors. I also need to understand the business aspects of how the technologies are used. I am always on the challenging slope of the learning curve. I can neither sit back and pontificate on the abstract nor enjoy the luxury of knowing every detail. As difficult as it is to be in this position, I can’t think of a more stimulating business to be in.
That is as far as I have thought things through. I would love to hear your feedback on the usefulness of the concept and the positioning of the different players. In particular, if you are a consumer of information, is the information marketplace serving you with the appropriate level of detail?
Related posts:
- Open Source Content Management Webinar I don’t normally like the standard webcast format (either...
- Content Management as a Practice A few weeks ago Deane Barker from Blend Interactive...
- Mid-Market CMS EContent Magazine recently announced the 7th edition of CMS...
- Introducing Content Here – The Company I have started a new company. Content Here is...
- The RFP is Dead! Long Live the RFP! There has been an interesting thread on the CM...
Hi Seth,
Sounds like you need to go on more bike rides! This is a great concept and an excellent post. As you point out, you didn’t go into detail on the analysts on the right side of the triangle, and your list/order illustrates your point quite well, IMO. That said, one thing that jumps out at me is that the analysts on the right publish reports which are often used as a *primary* input by many buyers at all levels on the outside-left. While generating a lot of business for vendors who score well on those reports, the reports also often create an expectation mismatch when buyers from the left stop there and neglect to use a firm-for-hire (analyst or otherwise) during the software acquisition process who can dig into their specific requirements and identify some appropriate product matches from the marketplace. Next thing you know, we’ll find ourselves in checkbox-he** where all RFPs look identical, no one focuses on their own needs, and everyone complains afterward. Oh, wait, we’re there!
Since this justifies the existence of a firm like Content Here, I’m quite sure you made this subtle point by design, but I hadn’t thought about it visually in this way, so thanks for this.
Scott
Aside: While I am associated with one of the firms did make your cut, I’m sure there will be some who represent those that didn’t who may take offense. If someone wants to exhaust the diagram and add the other firms, it might be helpful, but is secondary to your intention. That said, if they do, I’d have them position all the firms inside the triangle spatially from left-to-right as well, since there is a continuum of buyer vs seller, and many do emphasize one or the other, but some dabble in both to various degrees.
Thanks for the comment Scott! If any analyst firm or consultancy wants to be on the diagram, let me know and we can discuss where you belong.
Hi Seth, I’m pretty sure we sit somewhere around the same spot as you guys, although a little less on the technology deep-diving
My sense is that Step Two is more focused on processes and governance than technology selection. Am I wrong?
Well, yes, we do cover processes and governance, particularly related to intranets.
But the other side of the business (my bit) is helping organisations select a CMS. I’m doing 4-5 right at the moment, and will probably end up doing over a dozen in 2009. Our philosophy on selection is very similar to yours, as covered in all our articles.
Oh, and we publish the Content Management Requirements Toolkit
Hi Seth – This is an interesting diagram. It raises more questions than answers for me, but starts an important discussion.
I think it works better when first bucketing organizations in categories vs. leading with specific ones. Otherwise it doesn’t scale. But I understand it was a process to help articulate where you stood, not map the landscape (this is your blog after all!).
As noted above, the role of analysts aren’t represented accurately on the buy side. Folks like Forrester play a huge role educating buyers with reports and consulting, and go much further downstream than indicated.
While not as plentiful, I do see quite a few independents or small orgs serving in your space as ‘CMS consultancies’ offering vendor neutral advice while not tied to a larger organization.
I also think its dangerous to cast system integrators in a big bucket or assume they all approach it with the same rigor. Some system integrators/interactive agencies have true consulting services for WCM and technology selections regardless of what they may or may not specialize in for delivery.
While I’m not angling to be on your diagram here (really, i’m not
, my firm, ISITE Design (we also publish the CMS Myth) does vendor neutral CMS vendor selection projects independent of our full service work. On par at the level James mentions above in terms of scope and number per year. We take a lot of pride in these services and try to fit it into a larger web strategy picture that more tool-focused consultants often don’t.
What’s clear is that everyone has their biases and specialties on this list (yes even vendor neutral folks), and the buyers need to be very aware of who they are getting information from.
I’ll chew on this some more. Nice post.
Jeff Cram
CMS Myth (and ISITE Design)
Seth,
I think you have put together a neat visual understanding of your market. You have sized up possible competitors and realized what customer types you should go after in comparison to the competitors. That said I think you put a big gray area up with system integrators. Of course, I would mention this one as I feel I normally work as system integrator and consultant. In your explanation of system integrator, I think you are referring to product specialist and possibly boutique companies that specialize in one or two products. I feel that in many “system integrator” companies there are a series of consultants that speak with both sponsors, managers and the c suite before products are selected and project objectives are outlined. Usually when system integrators work with the decision makes follow on work follows. When I think of system integrators, I think of companies like you and I’ve worked for in the past and of course big ones, e.g. Accenture, Bearing Point??, bah, booz, lmco, boeing, csc, NG, etc. So, I would think that a bucket like system integrators would need to a long rectangle on the left side that spans from cio to maintainers. Then again, maybe I am just looking at the system integrator classification at much higher level. If I am then where would my definition of system integrator fall in your competitor mix?
Cheers!
Hey Seth,
I think you have put together a neat visual understanding of your market. You have sized up possible competitors and realized what customer types you should go after in comparison to the competitors. That said I think you put a big gray area in your diagram with system integrators. Of course, I would mention this one as I feel I normally work as system integrator and consultant. In your explanation of system integrator, I think you are referring to product specialist and possibly boutique companies that specialize in one or two products. In many “system integrator” companies there are a series of consultants that speak with sponsors, managers and the c suite before products are selected and project objectives are outlined. Usually when system integrators work with the decision makes, follow on work follows. When I think of system integrators, I think of companies like you and I’ve worked for in the past and of course big ones, e.g. Accenture, Bearing Point??, bah, booz, lmco, boeing, csc, NG, etc. IMO, the system integrators classification would need to a long rectangle on the left side that spans from cio to maintainers. These types of system integrators also work with sellers through partnering programs but that is a different topic. So, maybe I am just looking at the system integrator classification at much more inclusive group than you.
Cheers!
Hi Jeff and Travis,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. The primary reason why I left Optaros to start Content Here is that I do not believe a systems integrator can afford to be vendor agnostic. This realization came after years of service at multiple systems integrators.
As a systems integrator, your exposure to products is limited to what you have implemented. If you look beyond what you have implemented, you either find yourself fighting a learning curve (at your client’s expense) or giving away implementation business to an experienced competitor who won’t make the same rookie mistakes that you would. Content Here recommends systems integrators who know the product and can reliably and efficiently deliver a solution. I avoid recommending systems integrators that are over certain size and have fewer than three successful, non-trivial implementations on a product. As I have said before, when someone says “technology agnostic,” I hear either “we don’t have skills on any platform” or, like the the waitress at Bob’s Country Bunker said: “Oh, we got both kinds [of music]. We got Country, and Western.”
As for larger systems integrators, the typical level of developer experience you get on a project team is very low unless the implementation staff is organized along product practices. If staffing is done from a general pool, it is very rare that you luck into a team that knows what it is doing. And if the integrator has product-oriented practices, you know their product recommendation is going to be biased.
I think that’s spot on Seth. Especially for orgs that self-identify under the classic definition and internal structure of a systems integrator. SI is such an ugly label too, eh?
I do think there are a new breed of agencies emerging that are focused more squarely on digital strategy and investing in a practice that can see the forest from the trees.
These firms are focused on the larger web marketing and technology ecosystem and in building multi-year digital roadmaps. Smart technology selection is at the heart of getting it right for these orgs.
While they may have implementation groups that specialize, they have a digital strategy consulting practice that is looking far beyond internal skill sets. And they may or may not end up being the actual implementation partner for all clients.
The value I see in this approach is that WCM doesn’t get silod as a technology selection process.
At least that’s the type of org we’re continuing to build and aspire toward. I will say it is much harder to position those services because we’re saddled with legacy definitions and expectations of a traditional system integration model.
Jeff Cram
Seth,
I share most of your thoughts as it pertains to system integrators. In my experience some buyer’s are willing to sacrifice a little to have an individual vendor that they can “partner” with for the entire life-cycle of a business objective (consulting with CIO through maintenance). My only point is when looking at service providers in the content management information market you can’t rule SIs out from being a competitor in the buyer’s management place on your diagram.
Cheers!