Gartner Blog Network

Real Quadrants? Not Really

by Jeffrey Mann  |  April 2, 2011  |  2 Comments

I had a little fun in yesterday’s April 1 post assigning new names to the Magic Quadrants, and renaming the whole thing to Real Quadrants. I hope I left enough clues that it was a joke, but it actually illustrates a frustrating issue. I am starting the process to update the Externally-Facing Social Software Magic Quadrant, so how people use the MQ is top of mind at the moment.

Analysts do a lot of work to define inclusion and evaluation criteria to give what we feel is a realistic and useful picture of a market. Obviously, there is no way to include all the nuances of what companies need to do and how they should get there in a two dimensional graphic. For most markets, we cannot include all possible vendors, but draw the inclusion criteria carefully to rate the most relevant ones. Our goal is to make the dot placements provide an overall view of the market, which combined with the text descriptions of the market itself and each vendor provides useful guidance. These are consistently among the most popular deliverables we produce, so despite the inevitable limitations, clients love them and find them useful.

However, it is not a good idea to take important decisions only by looking at the top right corner. I cringe whenever I hear customers say that they only consider vendors in the leader’s quadrant. That is not how these things should be used. When I speak with customers, I often recommend vendors from every quadrant or who are not on the MQ at all, based on what the customer wants to achieve, the infrastructure already installed, potential affinity with how the vendor works, etc. Interpreting these diagrams too broadly means missing out on a lot of great stuff.

Also, apologies to European readers who probably didn’t read it on April 1. I only thought of it in the evening while walking my dog. It usually works that way.

Category: being-an-analyst  humor  magic-quadrant  

Tags: mq  real-quadrants  

Jeffrey Mann
Research VP
20 years with Gartner and META Group
30 years IT industry

Jeffrey Mann is a Research VP at Gartner, covering cloud office, collaboration and social software.

Thoughts on Real Quadrants? Not Really

  1. You’ve mentioned that you often recommend vendors that are not present on the Magic Quadrants.

    Is there any way to learn what vendors were considered for some Magic Quadrant and additionally to find out why they were excluded?

  2. Jeffrey Mann says:

    The set of vendors not included is potentially inifinite (or at least very large) so there is no way we can explain every one.. Each MQ document describes the inclusion an exclusion criteria, so anyone not included should have fallen afoul of one of them. Some MQs include a Notable Absences section when there are vendors that might look like they should have been included, but weren’t for some reason.

    Gartner clients can always request a teleconference to talk about why a particular vendor was not included, or more background as to why they placed where they did.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments or opinions expressed on this blog are those of the individual contributors only, and do not necessarily represent the views of Gartner, Inc. or its management. Readers may copy and redistribute blog postings on other blogs, or otherwise for private, non-commercial or journalistic purposes, with attribution to Gartner. This content may not be used for any other purposes in any other formats or media. The content on this blog is provided on an "as-is" basis. Gartner shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of the content or use of this blog.