Richard Huxton wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
>> And consulting companies exist exactly to parrot whatever the current
>> conventional wisdom is. Gartner only came across as ill-informed in
>> that report (or any other I've ever read by them) when I actually
>> knew something about the technolgies in question.
>
>
> Gartner seem to have the same problems as the wider press do with any
> technical field - they don't know what they're talking about. When it
> is reporting on who said what when, both are fine. When it's
> discussing figures, they seem broadly OK. Once you need to get
> technical they generally flounder.
This is my point. Gartner doesn't have a great reputation involving
product comparisons and areas like TCO, technological advantages, etc.
They come across much more like semi-techie journalists than quality
consultants. When you compare their studies with those of, say, the
IDC, their methods seem opaque, and their conclusions difficult to
verify or even outright wrong. Similarly CapGeminii comes across as
"the Windows experts" so why would one take their word on something like
Linux?
The problem I am mentioning is that consulting firms exist to provide
competent advice. When they are proven wrong, it becomes a black eye.
Indeed, they could have made a better case against PostgreSQL by simply
saying "this is a less-known solution that we have not had prior
opportunity to study. This may present risks in terms of finding
qualified administrators and support staff." And if one is going to
parrot conventional wisdom, it makes sense to say so and say why. Even
something like "Oracle is the default solution in this area and
PostgreSQL seems relatively untested. We see that as a serious business
risk simply because it seems to be an unknown quantity" would be more
honest than what came out.
This is a general sickness which exists in many of the larger
consulting/analysis firms. I assume that this is different than the
technical consulting firms such as Accenture, but I have little
experience in this area. Though to be fair this is largely a problem
with hiring firms to do things that they are not able to do. For
example, if I want a market forecast or an analysis of the current
market, it might make sense to hire the IDC, but hiring them to help me
make a decision between say, Linux and FreeBSD is likely to be very
uninformative. Hiring Gartner to do this comparison seems to me sort of
like using NT4 to manage user accounts in a 20000 user business (this is
hardly uninformed: I am an MCSE).
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting
