If you accept, as per our last post on the subject, that ProcureTech analysts are not doing their jobs anymore, then why?

While many will say it’s complicated because there is often no single easy answer that encapsulates the entire situation, the reality is that there are only a few overriding answers, especially when you consider that if a job is NOT being done, there are only two fundamental entities in the mix that could be responsible for it not being done: the analyst and the firm.

The Analyst

If the reason the job is not getting done lies solely on the part of the analyst, then, sadly, the analyst probably shouldn’t have their job because, frankly, that means the analyst is lazy or stupid. (And you should know by now this site is NOT whatever your definition of political correctness is.) Unless the analyst is being prevented from doing their job properly by (actions of) the firm, there are no other explanations.

Lazy and while we agree with a fellow analyst who bluntly stated humans are naturally wired to be lazy, we also believe that if you are, you shouldn’t be an analyst, because you can’t even hope to get it right unless you work tirelessly to get to the truth ignored by marketing soundbites, hidden by demo personnel, and apparently shrouded in mystery at the C-Suite level

Stupid with respect to the smarts they need to do their job; doesn’t mean they are otherwise a stupid person, but if you don’t have a solid tech background (with appropriate degrees, experience, and understanding), no matter how smart you think you are, you shouldn’t be a tech analyst (or vendors will pull wool over your eyes on a daily basis)

The Firm

The firm is often the problem, even if they don’t know they are. (And that’s why many of the best analysts in our space, many of whom worked at bigger firms at one point or another, are with smaller firms or on their own.)

Overwork
If the firm constantly overworks their analysts, doesn’t give them mental health days, doesn’t give them sufficient time off in the case of illness or family emergency/death, the analyst is going to be tired and/or distracted and not going to do a good job. Period.

UnderTraining
If the analysts don’t have all of the required skill sets and knowledge to be an analyst (deep knowledge of their area, deep knowledge of tech, profiles of an average platform and analyst to start from, the [preferred] methodology used by the firm, the unique methodologies/outputs produced by the firm, etc.), then it is the responsibility of the firm that hired them to ensure they get the proper training and education. Period. (Because an undertrained analyst can not produce good work.)

Bad Direction
If the analysts are told to do substandard work, ensure a certain vendor looks better than the rest in a map, or only write up the good parts, then any poor performance on the part of the analyst is entirely the fault of the firm giving them that direction.

And if the analyst isn’t doing their job, we’d wager this is the dominant reason. Especially when, of the big firms:

• one will NOT include a vendor in their main map unless the vendor is a paying client
• one changes their entry requirements every year so that it’s almost impossible for a non-client to make all of the entry requirements
• one tends to only publish maps that are vendor sponsored up-front

The reality of the situation is that it’s quite hard to do unbiased research if you’re paid up front by a vendor for that research. Period.

Until the models change so that the only money taken from a vendor in relation to any published research report is an optional license after the fact, you can’t expect good, unbiased research or analysts to be allowed to do their jobs.