I don't know her personally, just a blog colleague. I stumbled across a good paper on Event Driven Architecture (EDA) that she wrote a few months ago and I started reading her blog.
I really dig the fact that she is going to be a "transparent" analyst.
I have always been troubled by the transparency problem with IT Industry analysts. It is far too easy for analysts to have conflict of interest problems when they have clients on both sides of the fence. This is a problem when readers of the research do not know which vendors are also clients of the analyst / who funded the research they are reading (and perhaps basing vendor short lists on thinking that it is objective).
Kudos to Brenda for being transparent. We won't have to guess what her natural biases are (after all, we all have them). I hope that this becomes the norm with IT Industry analysts.
And Brenda, please make a point to always review an OSS alternative when researching software (given your track record in this area, I doubt this will be a problem). And if you don't think there is a credible OSS alternative, state why. This is another curious issue with non-transparent analyst firms. Too often viable OSS alternatives to proprietary software are not reviewed or even mentioned in research.
This is not an endorsement by my employer, but my personal view. Vendors are NOT free to quote with attribution to my employer.
1 comment:
Mike - Thanks for the 'marketing' assist. Like my friends at Redmonk I view transparency as a 'must-have'. Hopefully others will as well.
I'll continue to cover open source, and when I don't have an open source option in the mix, I can definitely note 'why not'.
-brenda
Post a Comment