For vendors the process starts when we send out a research proposal, which helps us assess whether your solution is an appropriate fit for the report. We also ask you to complete an intake form that describes the proposed evaluation criteria of the upcoming report. Next, we work to schedule a briefing between the GigaOm analyst and your team, to ensure a full and fair exploration of your offering. One to two months later, you can expect to receive a fact-check draft of the Radar report, which we ask vendors to review to ensure that our findings are accurate. The overall process takes three to four months.
Absolutely. Please contact us to find out more about our methodology and research processes.
Typically, you’ll receive correspondence for the factual review four to six weeks after the brief was completed.
Our sales and analyst teams work together to schedule, plan, and execute GigaOm Radar reports, identifying the reports in which your company is slated to be featured. We try to share ahead of time approximate timelines for vendor engagement—including fact checks—so your team can be prepared.
GigaOm Radar reports typically publish two to four weeks after the fact-check deadline.
Our research proposals describe the key criteria and table stakes used to determine applicability for each report.
Customer references are for our records only; we do not use customer names in the report. Instead, we ask for the completion of a questionnaire, which the analyst uses to contact customers directly via email and then arrange a call. It is usually a 30-minute meeting to cover our criteria, why the customer chose your company, how the implementation went, and the experience of your solution.
We welcome vendors to review our GigaOm Radar report planning schedule and to reach out to us to express interest in participating in upcoming GigaOm Radar and Sonar reports. We will note your interest in our database so the analyst can review it during the initial stages of their research. Note that participation in our reports is defined by table stakes that describe minimum functionality for solutions in a report. Once you’re logged in, you’re in the system. But we’d rather have a report-specific briefing than a general briefing when a report isn’t being written.
Generally, we create multiple radars in sectors where there is significant differentiation in requirements based on market segment (often defined as solutions for small, medium, and large enterprises) or based on use case. For example, for Unified Data Management, we created one Radar report for business-focused solutions and another for infrastructure-focused solutions. The research proposal for the given report(s) will explain the rationale for producing multiple Radar reports.
Solution sectors evolve and shift, and our analysts are constantly monitoring these movements to assess emergent sectors and technology. If there’s sufficient merit in a nascent space, we might produce a GigaOm Sonar report to provide an early evaluation of available products. In addition, GigaOm Radar and Sonar reports can be expedited—vendors pay a fee to move a syndicated report concept forward in our schedule (just as an enterprise end-user might request a roadmap feature by paying in advance). Be aware that expedited Radar and Sonar reports conform to all our rigorous standards for independent research and that the engaged vendor will gain no special standing or consideration in the evaluation process.
The answer to that comes down to table stakes, which describe the minimum threshold of capability for solutions we evaluate in a sector. Relevance is determined by functionality, not market presence. In this way, we follow the same steps as an enterprise technology buyer to create a level playing field–as best we can–for evaluation. In some cases we develop additional inclusion criteria, for example, from use cases and/or for a specific subset of customers. We document these in the research proposal presented to vendors.
Every GigaOm Radar report goes through a fact check stage where we provide each vendor a link to the in-progress report with the capsules for all the other vendors removed. Vendors are free to mark up anything they see as inaccurate or add any necessary information to support their case. Specific points can be followed up by email, but we will address all vendor questions or concerns.
The main point of the demo is to review the solution’s look and feel and understand how it might be deployed. Some of our analysts run evaluation copies of the software to test the solutions. If we want to evaluate the ease of use or graphical creation of workflows, demos often help inform this process.
Our analysts are interested in how the solution reflects the key criteria in the research proposal, which focuses on users’ needs. They want to review the functionality and usability and understand how the technology is designed and deployed.
This is up to the vendor, but we suggest that the presentation focus on the real-world application of the tools and the technology that underpins it.
Yes, as long as it is agreed before the call. We record briefing calls to reference them later in our research.
Time pressures can make this a challenge, so we leave it to the analyst’s discretion.
Given how solution categories are constantly commoditizing, the general rule for scoring is the principle of a threshold. If a vendor solution delivers on a feature or quality, it hits the threshold and is scored as ++. If the vendor offers better than other vendors in some way, it can get +++, and the analyst should document the reason. Similarly, if the solution is lacking compared to other vendors, it is awarded +, and the analyst should also document why. In this way, we can consider what might have been a differentiating solution in one year, but the following year it has become something all vendors provide.
We recognize that markets are constantly commoditizing. This means we are looking for a deviation from what is seen as the current norm. In this case, we’ll generally assume everyone is a fast mover, then look for vendors that are ahead of the pack (outperformers) or behind (forward movers). The consequence of this model is that if we explain why they are ahead/behind, it becomes a useful cross-check of the vendor description. Internally we talk about defensibility, which means we must always explain why a vendor solution earns its rating.
We rate vendor solutions based on technology and execution rather than market share, sales numbers, or incumbency. The Radar position for each solution is determined by a number of factors. Analysts score key criteria, evaluation metrics, and other factors to determine distance from center in our Radar charts, while arrow length and direction is derived from forward-looking analysis of vendor considerations, including investments, roadmap roadmap execution, and projected technical advancement. Quadrant position (Feature Play vs Platform Play and Maturity vs Innovation) is determined by analysis of vendor technology implementations, business practices, financial behavior, and approaches to the market.
When a vendor rates its solution on a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being best), it is not rating its solution compared to other vendors/solutions, but instead how well it executes on that specific key criteria, evaluation metric, etc. The questionnaire will give the analyst insight into the vendor/solution’s strengths, challenges, and capabilities.
Our analysts come from a broad pool of practitioners representing the industry. Our methodology and peer review process ensures that our Radar reports are objective and independent. We offer vendors an opportunity to check what we have written before publication. Should an analyst come from a specific vendor, we can define a gap before the analyst cannot write about the vendor.
Our Radar report methodology mirrors the process that enterprises employ to evaluate solutions to a problem or opportunity. In this regard, excluding a vendor because it prefers not to be included in a report does not make sense. If a vendor meets the table stakes for a GigaOm Radar report and falls within the inclusion criteria, we will generally include it. Doing otherwise would impair the value of the report. Of course, we welcome a vendor’s views on why it might be inappropriate to include it in a report, and the analyst will take this feedback into consideration when developing their roster of solutions.
A vendor’s solution will be included in the report fact check if it has met the required table stakes for a research category. This reflects the process that takes place at end-user organizations evaluating a technology solution. However, a vendor may make a removal request, for example, if it feels it does not qualify to be in the report. The analyst will consider such requests on a case-by-case basis.
Gigaom does not disclose whether or not vendors have participated in our research.
There is no cost associated with inclusion in GigaOm Radar reports unless you wish to acquire reprint rights. For further information on our pricing model for licensing report reprints, please get in touch with our sales team.
There’s no such thing as a client-sponsored Radar or Sonar report at GigaOm. These reports are part of our syndicated content stream, which means we produce them independently and then sales can reach out to sell reprint rights and licensing opportunities. Vendors can also purchase reprint licenses in advance to expedite publication of a report on a specific solution sector, however the report development process remains completely independent. Companies that license expedited research gain no additional access to the process or analyst.
Contact our sales team for more information if you want to leverage reprint rights after publication of the report.
Please let us know if your vendor is interested in being included in a Radar report. While we generally evaluate specific categories annually, we can let the analyst team know the vendor is interested in being considered for our research. When we next refresh the report, our team will reach out to see if the vendor meets the inclusion criteria. If the report is already underway, we will consider inclusion during the process subject to delivery deadlines.
Unfortunately, we can only share the full report with a vendor once it purchases reprint rights. Even though the report is not shown externally, it contains competitive information that a vendor can benefit from, which would be unfair to the other vendors in the report.
The GigaOm Sonar report addresses nascent and emerging technology sectors that are not yet mature enough for the more rigorous evaluation of a Radar report. Sonar reports provide an introduction to innovative new solutions that are poised to define the character of solutions moving forward.