I shouldn’t have to address this again, but every year multiple vendors reach out and ask how to get on these vendors maps because they believe it’s the only way to get more market visibility and/or be selected by certain customers, including you. It’s not the only way to get visibility and if a vendor can’t convince a potential customer from thinking that only map companies are good, I’ll tell them this right now — that’s not a customer they want (because that vendor will be out on the renewal with whatever vendor overtakes them in the map when the CPO changes in 3 years, because companies without vision to look beyond a meaningless map don’t keep real talent, and only real talent will identify and select the best solution and ensure that solution is kept over time).

But I digress — this post is about you, the potential customer, and why you need to STOP caring what Gartner, Forrester, or IDC thinks.

First of all, we’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: It’s NOT the Analyst Firm. It’s the Analyst!.

In addition to all of the skillsets and education that an analyst needs to have to get it right, which we covered in detail in that post, the analyst needs a lot of relevant experience, and history in the ProcureTech space, to make sense of the ProcureTech world today. Ask yourself: how many of the analysts with the right education have at least 10 years in our space? The answer is very few. How many have 20 years in (independent) analyst roles? You can count them on your fingers. I know of myself, Jon Hansen, Pierre Mitchell, and Chris Sawchuk with 20 years of (independent) analyst experience in our space and a deep technical (STEM) education. Everyone else who started covering this space day in, day out two decades ago has moved on or retired. Now, of these analysts, how many have also built actual solutions in the ProcureTech space, connecting the dots between the education, theory, and practice? Two of us — myself and Jon Hansen. (But we should note that Pierre and Chris spent part of their careers on solution advisory consulting and implementation guidance, and have deep knowledge about the implementation and integration requirements, which is also very unique and useful in technology selection.)

Now remember the second point: Vendors Have Lured Big Analyst Firms Astray and that you’re not getting a map of the best solutions, but the best solutions from the analyst firm’s pool of vendor sponsors and research subscribers, where the reality is that only the big, established, cash-rich companies can afford the high-priced subscriptions that keep them in front of the overworked analysts who have to spend over half of their time taking inquiries or keeping high paying subscription customers happy. (Whereas analysts at smaller firms or independents get to focus on studying and understanding the solutions, not general inquiries or whether or not the contract [or pricing model] is good.)

This means that these big firm analysts are not spending a lot of time, if any, looking at the up-and-coming mid-sized companies that have not only been around long enough to develop mature enterprise solutions, but solutions that are more modern, more powerful, more usable, and more intelligent (with embedded analytics, RPA, and the right AI for the task at hand), and possibly (much) better for you. Moreover, if the enterprise is a mid-market company, or able to go with a best-of-breed as a bolt-on to their enterprise ProcureTech platform, they’ll never know about the majority of these solutions (as only the overfunded startups will have the money to get the big analyst firm attention, and these vendors often have more financial stability problems than the smaller vendors who are bootstrapping or taking minimal funding and actually have stable, happy, paying customers keeping them afloat).

Third, and most important, it’s not the best rated solution, it’s the best solution for your organization. Not only is it the case that this solution is very likely not on a map of only 20 companies (when there might be 100 companies that offer that solution), but it might also be the case that it is the lowest ranked solution on those maps — especially when these maps tend to rate solutions on a lot of subjective factors that match what the analyst thinks are the most relevant for an average organization, whereas you are a specific organization which has a specific set of relevant factors that you care about, with specific requirements for those factors. The more divergence between your factors and the analysts’, and your scale and theirs, the worse the map is for your needs, and the worse the solution you select will be.

The only maps you should care about are those that rank solutions solely on the tech capabilities and/or the customer rankings. But only so far as potential solution identification, not selection. Maps that concentrate on pure tech (like Spend Matters Solution Map) allow you to identify vendors that have the tech foundations, giving you a starting pool, but don’t allow you to identify vendors that have a solution — because a solution is tech and appropriate process support and integration capability and support and culture and whatever else transforms another piece of potential shelfware into a solution that will be used daily by your employees.

Note that we used the word “potential” for a reason. No map (including Spend Matters) is complete, so you will need to look at multiple sources (like ProcurementSoftware.site and the upcoming Art of Procurement ProcureTech 100) to put together a complete list of vendors to consider. Then you will have to cross reference with real analyst vendor write-ups (which can include the hundreds of write-ups here on this site if one or more of your potential finalists are included) to whittle down that list to the best starting set for your best practice technology RFP (of which we have a lot of advice on how to write that on this site as well).

At the end of the day, it’s about what solution will work for you, not about which solution is on which map!