First published on LinkedIn, click here to see it and comments added by others.
As discussed in my recent article (“Gartner Magic Quadrants – what value are they to CFO’s?”) the 2019 report for Cloud Financial Planning and Analysis Solutions was released last week. The flurry of Social Media posts has begun! If you have not received a link, it can be accessed here.
Make sure you read the whole report!
As previously advised, read the report in whole, it certainly makes very interesting reading and (in my opinion) raises some searching questions.
What does the 2019 Report tell us?
Well, there is not a great deal of change from the 2018 report in respect of vendors positioning in the Magic Quadrant (MQ). The noted omission (all though it does get an ‘Honorable Mention’) is Longview “for its inability to meet the Gartner inclusion criteria with respect to revenue attainment and number of live customers”.
What we still lack is the detail behind how the information gathered by Gartner is translated into the MQ which is still the key takeaway for consumers and the part that is quoted by vendors. An algorithm is mentioned and that it “considers the vendors as a whole” in calculating the MQ.
For me the MQ should be significantly skewed to the Customer Experience – how good the product is, how easy it is to implement/use (the full list of 11 key areas is detailed in the Evaluation Criteria section of the report). This would put the likes of OneStream and CCH Tagetik as ‘Leaders’ alongside Anaplan and Host Analytics.
However, it would appear that this is not the case. How else can you explain how Oracle are depicted as the leader in the MQ when “Survey respondents scored Oracle in the midquartile range or below in most of the 11 key areas surveyed, with three scores being especially weak. Lowest quartile scores were reported in ease of implementation, application governance/life cycle management and performance”? In addition, “Customers responding to our reference survey placed Oracle’s overall product capabilities in the lowest quartile. Customers cited the need for improvements in the user interface, in performance, and with integration beyond Oracle’s own solutions”. Added to this, “Oracle’s overall scores for service and support were in the lowest quartile. Customer feedback was mixed, with some customers stating they saw continuous improvement in this area, while others required significant patience to get issues resolved. Sales consistency was also noted as a challenge”. To be clear, I am not knocking Oracle as a solution, merely pointing out that there appear to be inconsistencies between the common use of the MQ and the narrative that accompanies it.
The only conclusion we can come to is that other Evaluation Criteria are more heavily weighted. Unfortunately, this is most often not how this information is commonly consumed.
The value of the Gartner MQ
Let’s not be overly critical – there is significant value within the Gartner report as a whole. There is a lot of information and customer research that is very valuable to the consumer. It is still (in my opinion) heavily biased towards the US market and US based vendors but that is the world as we know it.
Having reviewed this particular Report in detail, I do seriously question the concept of the MQ as it stands and the likelihood of misuse and interpretation. It seems to be an attempt to throw everything into a melting pot and come out with a single score for each vendor, an attempt to produce a sexy and simplistic graphic for marketing purposes. It is akin to the finance team creating one all-encompassing KPI to monitor company performance. It is too simplistic, does not work and can give the wrong impression to the consumer.
One other point, Gartner are a market influencer (like it or not) and, as such, need to be extremely careful of the wording adopted in their Reports. An example of this within the current Report is around IBM. Gartner explain that IBM has moved “from the Leaders quadrant to the Visionaries quadrant due to a decrease in market competitiveness and recognizable market activity compared with other Leaders”. It is goes onto explain “This shouldn’t be construed as reflecting the overall effectiveness of the solution. Rather, it may represent a diminished level of market execution and presence, as compared with the Leaders in this Magic Quadrant, that could be taken into account when evaluating the solution”. However, it is the first comment that will be used by competing vendors in upcoming sales pitches and the one that will resonate within the market. This, without doubt, will impact future sales opportunities for the IBM product and could result in a downward move on the MQ in 2020.
Conclusion
Whilst it is left to the vendor to interpret the MQ (and they will spin the MQ to their advantage), the Gartner Report and MQ risks being significantly devalued. What Gartner need to do (in my opinion) is to find another way of presenting the invaluable information they have gathered, one that is easier to consume and to interpret (or not to misinterpret).
From a consumer point of view, read the whole report and take time to understand what it is saying and what it is not saying. Put vendors on the spot if they quote the MQ and ask them to drill further into the strengths and, in particular, the weaknesses of their solution as detailed in the Report.
It is my firm opinion that, for most consumers, all the solutions in the MQ would provide you with a good, working financial planning solution. Most have the same core capability and functionality (as alluded to in the Report) and most organisations only use a fraction of the capability on offer. There may be products that have a better fit for your organisation i.e. pricing due to your size, culture, delivery methodology. However, the major differentiation for me is often not the software itself but the expertise and capability of the team who are implementing the solution. This is often the key to success but is often underestimated during the selection process when the majority of time is spent on the software selection and not the ultimate delivery.
I look forward to the Financial Close Report to see what that has to offer!
Leave A Reply