|
1. Survey
In the survey step,
analysts gather information through both formal
survey instruments and informal surveys of the users
and vendors who represent the most powerful element
in our research: our research network. Analysts
continuously interact with this network, as well as
with other analysts, to accumulate industry
information and knowledge.
2. Pattern
Recognition
A pattern emerges from the
wealth of information gathered during the survey
phase. Suddenly, the analyst gets a flash, a
revelation. An entirely new key issue and set of
Strategic Planning Assumptions (SPAs) must be
crafted.
3. Create a Stalking
Horse
To gather even more data to
support an emerging pattern, the analyst sets forth
a tentative SPA or a stalking horse. A stalking
horse is a conceptual graphic that illustrates a
theory. This technique is used to attract comment
from other analysts and industry experts. Only
Gartner uses this device to "stimulate" the research
network.
4. Search and Verify
Before publishing a SPA,
the analyst seeks out written material from all
available channels, including press releases,
financial reports, Wall Street Reports, newswires,
and other Gartner research.
|
|
|
Probability
|
Definition
|
|
1.0
|
This has already happened, but either the event has been hidden or the full impact is not yet realized.
|
|
0.9
|
This will definitely happen, barring a major industry reversal. We would be shocked otherwise. Moreover, we are almost certain of timing.
|
|
0.8
|
This will happen, barring exceptional circumstances. The major schematics are in
place, and this planning assumption forms a major piece of our scenario. We would be quite
surprised if it failed to happen, but a degree of uncertainty exists. We have a good idea of
the timing.
|
|
0.7
|
There is good reason to believe this will be
true, but there is a decent chance it will not
be true. We would be surprised, but not
shocked, if it did not happen. Moreover, the
timing is soft, and it may vary from our
estimates. Clients should include this in
their strategic plans.
|
|
0.6
|
This is a general direction, better than a
rumor or a guess, but not necessarily by a
lot. Most likely, we do not have a firm idea
of the timing.
|
|
0.5
|
A tossup. This probability is normally not
used except in times when there are more than
two alternatives. In these cases, the
probabilities are used to acknowledge the
distinct possibility of a third alternative,
as well as to establish a firm position about
the likelihood of this third alternative
happening. For example, when there are three
different scenarios being analyzed, each will
carry a distinct probability and the sum of
the probabilities will total 1.0. Thus, if two
scenarios totaled 0.5 (0.1 + 0.4), the third
will be assigned a 0.5 probability.
|
|
0.4
|
This will probably not happen, but we would be
neither surprised nor shocked if it did.
|
|
0.3
|
There is good reason to believe this will not
happen, but there is some chance it will.
|
|
0.2
|
This will not happen, barring exceptional
circumstances.
|
|
0.1
|
This will definitely not happen, barring
incredible industry turnaround.
|
|
0.0
|
Completely impossible.
|
|
|
Type A
|
Type B
|
Type C
|
|
Companies compete at the cutting edge of
innovation and use IT as a weapon. They tend
to be the rarest group. They weigh the risk of
the early use of technology against the
benefits of competitive advantage.
|
Companies compete neither on price nor on
innovation, but on full service and overall
value. They represent the largest group and
use IT to improve their productivity, product
quality and customer service. The Type B
company will typically wait for a technology
to become mainstream before considering
implementation.
|
Companies compete on the thin edge of cost
margin or economies of scale, and use IT to
help reduce costs. They are the second largest
group. Type C companies will generally lag the
market (often by as much as 12 to 24 months)
waiting for a technology to become absolutely
stable and for its price to reach the lowest
quartile before committing to purchase.
|
|
In addition to categorization at the company level,
most organizations will find that individual
departments or divisions will display different
technology strategies (e.g., the finance department
operates as Type A and the human resources department
operates as Type B). This difference will either
manifest itself in differing purchase strategies where
buying power is decentralized, or as a point of
contention where buying is centralized.
|
|
|
