Home
Author
Presentations
Forthcoming Events

Business Architecture
Enterprise Architecture
Organizational Intelligence
Requirements Engineering Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA)

NOW AVAILABLE The draft of my book on Organizational Intelligence is now available on LeanPub http://leanpub.com/orgintelligence. Please support this development by subscribing and commenting. Thanks.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Industry Analyst Coverage

@mcgoverntheory (James McGovern) complains about the completeness, balance and objectivity of industry analyst coverage. He believes that certain areas are neglected (security, open source), and attributes this to a commercial bias.

  • How important is it for industry analysts to include security analysis in their SaaS research?
  • Does non-commercial open source have a fighting chance to be mentioned by industry analysts to their customers? How can customers understand analyst transparency when it comes to coverage of non-commercial open source?

James has always been particularly exercised about the fact that OWASP lacks coverage. When he raised this issue with me last year, I responded by posting some questions on the OWASP wiki and the OWASP Linked-In group, as well as
several posts on this blog. I'm still waiting for answers.

If there is something in the product offering from any of the large vendors that I don't understand, I can contact one of my analyst relations "minders" and get a reasonably quick answer. If it's a small vendor, I can usually get an answer straight from the CTO. In contrast, my questions to OWASP go into a black hole. One person even suggested that if I wanted to know something about OWASP I needed to start a project. No thanks. (And, to answer Jim's comment below, I don't want to join a mailing list either.)

Industry analysts simply cannot invest that amount of time in chasing non-existent information. If OWASP wishes to be taken seriously by industry analysts, then it needs to put some energy into briefing industry analysts properly, instead of expecting us to root around the OWASP website and complaining when we don't.

Large vendors may sometimes try to influence industry analysts by commissioning work, and many analysts declare this when they deem it relevant. (I think that's what James means by transparency.) But a much more subtle influence can be achieved simply by providing better quality information and making our lives easier.

4 comments:

James McGovern said...

I agree with your current assessment of OWASP and will take the following action items:

1. If any analyst wants to publish detailed research (not just blog posts) on OWASP, please have them contact me directly and I will personally guarantee them a response to every single question they have within 48 hours.

2. If they want to schedule a dialog, I will clear my work schedule and make time available.

3. If I fail at either of the above, they can personally blog this fact. Transparency goes both ways...

Jim Manico said...

"In contrast, my questions to OWASP go into a black hole"

Who are you emailing, seriously? The OWASP mailing lists are here https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo are any of them being unresponsive?

Carter said...

Richard, Good post.

James, It is not enough to be willing to respond to requests or questions from analysts. You have to proactively reach out to the analysts and sell them on why they should be covering OWASP.

This lack of outreach is not just problem with open source products but also commercial startups and even major vendors with new products outside their traditional markets. To see a little more on the subject check out:

"Are the analysts laggards or have startups neglected to brief them? [Startup Saturday]"

http://sagecircle.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/are-the-analysts-laggards-or-have-startups-neglected-to-brief-them-startup-saturday/

Jim Manico said...

Great idea, OWASP would definitely benefit from a solid $100,000 USD donation so we can afford such an employee!