Savio's post on open source and IT analyst firms got me thinking about how the disruptive nature of open source is affecting not only the business of software but also the industry analyst community. It's well documented that proprietary software companies must begin to evolve alongside the paradigm shift represented by open source but there's less talk about what IT analysts must do to adapt. James McGovern is a big proponent for including open source in the same research as proprietary products a la an open source friendly Magic Quadrant and this is a valid point.
However, what stands out as more critical is the need to ensure that approaches to covering open source technology are aligned to its unique nature. Even if it's a given that strong software products and vendors exhibit similar characteristics regardless of the type of development model employed, there are fundamental differences in the companies and business models built around each. As a result, in order for evaluation techniques, research methodologies and inclusion criteria to remain current against the backdrop of an increasing number of open source players they must adjust.
Savio mentioned that:
"Analysts help customers make purchase decisions. Analysts also educate the market on new technologies."
Yet how are analysts responding to the changing nature of product development as it relates to open source? In order to speak from a position of expertise you've got to grasp the often complex nature of technology. Purchasing decisions are based on proven value propositions and expressing them requires an understanding of why and how technology matters. From a finished product perspective, features are features are features. But a complete portrayal of the vision, capability and viability of commercial open source vendors entails a measurement of the entire equation. A task which points to question marks regarding assumptions about the accepted methods of qualitative analysis.
Is it possible that the prospect of evaluating the size of an install base for an open source product is complicated by reality of the free, unpaid user? What value is attributed the value of open source code? If the dynamics of the software industry have changed such that there never is a $1B commercial open source vendor, does this negatively affect how open source is viewed by Gartner, Forrester, IDC et al.? Views which still hold more than enough sway over how the majority of enterprise CIO's look at open source, by the way. Entiva is able to focus on open source exclusively and that tunnel vision is both good and bad. Yet I'm convinced that it's going to take a widespread adjustment by the larger IT analyst community before open source gets its proper due. I'm interesting in hearing what anyone else thinks...
As someone who made the jump from developer/architect/dev-mgr to industry analyst just a year ago, i find these questions valuable. From my own experience in the trenches, i include open-source software side-by-side with commercial equivalents in my written research and in helping clients explore alternatives. OSS is a lot easier to "sell" into the enterprise than just four years ago. But unless you're talking about a really well-established best-of-breed product, it's a lot harder to get useful information on OSS projects *unless you're in a position to download, install, and evaluate them first-hand*. i suspect that makes them inaccessible to some analysts.
Posted by: joeniski | October 02, 2007 at 02:55 PM
Joe,
You're spot on with your observations, and the point about the need to take a hands-on approach is exactly what I intended to relay. It's my perspective that open source software is a disruptive force for the industry analyst business because it removes barriers to getting close to the technology we cover for us analysts.
We don't have to rely solely on product demos and proof of concepts when products are available as open source. We can/should freely and easily assume the role of independent, quasi-user and then integrate this experience into our research and analysis. This will do nothing but increase the value of our advise, perspectives and output.
We're currently working this concept into our methodology at Entiva, see here for an example - http://alexfletcher.typepad.com/all_bets_off/2007/10/getting-a-beat-.html
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Posted by: Alex Fletcher | October 03, 2007 at 02:55 PM