Michael Maoz

Disclaimer: The following will not escape the impression of self serving. Cynics should move on, but, you know, fools rush in….

For the past six days I have been locked in an ever-more-involving review of my research by my peers.  This is a piece of work that involved an assessment of software. My position was challenged because it seemed inconsistent with other research I had already published.  Another and another and another analyst entered the fray.

We examined my data, and created spreadsheets testing the inputs. We looked at the assumptions I had made.  It turned out that the research was on target, but the perception that it would create could potentially be  incorrectly applied by our clients. We debated different approaches until finally we found a way to depict the assessment in the way that lent itself best to practical application by our clients. 

The point is: it was not debate-for-the-sake-of-debate: it was a critical assessment that went beyond just getting the facts right and into how our clients could make informed decisions. And it was exciting, fact-based, rigorous and collegial and opened up new avenues of research. It was analysts taking on the role of advocates for our clients. It is a passion you see in all great companies, and one I see around here at Gartner every day.