A large section of customers makes their IAM technology decisions based on magic quadrants, critical capability reports and other document published by leading analysts. While these research reports can be good pointers, they cannot be used for final decision making.
This is why:
Analysts use filters such as minimum revenue of the vendor as a qualification criterion. Most breakthrough and disruptive tech do not have revenue numbers to support. Often what is proven in our industry is obsolete, what is not proven is new.
It is not only the technology which is to be evaluated. Any true evaluation has to be in the context of the customer’s cultural and experience environment, geography, affordability and support capabilities in the customer region. Analysts research reports provide very little weight to these factors.
We all know that in the end, success is not based on tangible factors like the product but intangibles like passion and desire to serve the customer. If rationality could ensure success, robots should be taking all the decisions.
Customers have a tendency of looking at the “leadership quadrant”, ignoring others. More often than not leadership quadrant products are not the right fit for most customers. This is because, for success, less than 50% of magic quadrant features are really required.
Often product implementations fail not because of the product but the ability of the implementor. Poor partnering between customer and vendor implementation teams are the best recipe for failure.
How much to implement in what time frame is very often not understood and results in poor timeline management and frustration.