Daryl, Gartner seem to be quite popular but all all they have to do is back up their claims with the source of their evidence. Unfortunately some people just take "authorities" word as law without seeking evidence of its source. I am not suggesting that this is what you have done and I am sure that you are more streetwise than this but this is a basic rule of report writing. They must be able to provide references otherwise the whole thing is not worth a jot.

As an example Terrence recently produced a survey of CMMS. (http://maintenanceforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/226103861/m/8971085161). I asked him for more information about his source and he duly supplied this. I never take as gospel anything that cannot be verified, even from Gartner or ARC (or Terrence )

Bryan,

Your point is well taken, and I agree. personally they are verified to me as I know what their sources are, and I have followed their analysis over 7 years and it has proved close to how things have panned out.

Again it is a personal thing here, not recommending or canning them, merely posted for information.

In the case of gartner and Meta group, these are substantial international analyst bodies who have a range of analysts who work with business leaders, such as IBM etc, throughout the world. They arent lightweights and are able to seel their research fror a high price for one reason and one reason only, people trust it enough to buy it!

Would be a good game to be in, but is a serious analyst organization.

There are others that may be of interest, particularly with a view to industry specific sources. http://www.miningnews.net is one from the mining industry for example, ther eare also a range of them from the energy, electricity, water, oil and gas and potentially every other industry grouping.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Ozgipsy>,

Good balance and reality check Daryl.

It just boils me to see some of the analysts material like CALM PAM etc... Like they originated the thought. I am sure Gartner and the rest are respectable but what are we to all do with the Magic Quadrant?

When you (DM) write or speak about something you think relating to maintenance and reliability - I pay attention - because you work it - for real - and have to make what you say work - or your clients are not going to invite you back and you will get very hungry.

I think that people who try to add wisdom for future direction are needed as well but I would be interested in what you have to say about EAM companies paying for analysts coverage?

Do not get me wrong - money makes the world go round - but shouldn't they disclose when they write about a client that is paying for coverage? Some material makes it seem like it comes from a neutral journalistic source when in fact it is a work for hire.

Thoughts?

Terry O

Guys:

Actually, not an attack from me. Just having a little fun.

Interesting claims from ARC. Have seen them elsewhere, but not in some of the areas they claim to be.

Reading through some of the other stuff on 'magic quadrants.'

Howard

What are the PAM brands that ARC talks about in the report? I'm curious to know them. TQ