Executive Summary
- This article is part of our honest vendor series, which is one of the only ratings of vendors rather than applications.
- The vendor quality is critical to the decision making process as software purchases have a high long term involvement by the software vendor.
Introduction
A company that needs no introduction, IBM has been one of the giants in computer hardware and software since there was computing. It now makes most of its income from software and consulting.
Quality of Information Provided
IBM provides a deficient quality of information to its customers.
Consulting and Support
IBM Global Services is one of the major consulting companies. As IBM is more services business than software-driven, IBM has a great deal of credibility with some clients with regards to technical advice. However, the problem is that all of IBM’s advice comes with a substantial financial bias – that is, they are serving as a “trusted advisor.” Still, curiously all of their recommendations lead to the selection of either IBM or partner software (i.e. Oracle or SAP) for which they have large numbers of resources for which they can bill. How a firm can be both a trusted advisor while they both own applications, and have resources trained on specific products, is difficult to understand. It is a joke. IBM has a clear and indisputable conflict of interest in any recommendation it makes. IBM, as with any of the large consulting companies, lengthens the number of time projects take to maximize billing hours, and has their clients implement very complex applications which are most often uncompetitive solutions.
Internal Efficiency
IBM’s is a large company with a correspondingly low-efficiency level.
Innovation
IBM was, at one time, an innovative company and is still the number one producer of patents in the US. However, this is entirely not evident from evaluating their applications. IBM is one of the great Fake Innovators. This is a bit like analyzing Microsoft, which has 90,000 people that work for it, but it is impossible to tell from actually analyzing the company’s output.
When one looks at IBM’s enterprise software offerings, they are almost entirely acquired applications that receive very little software development and typically obsolesce several years after the acquisition. IBM advertises its innovation in areas like hardware, and it does employ scientists that do actual research, and in things like “big data,” but we rate them as a laggard and a last choice in data applications. IBM’s large number of patents may have something more to do with how the company has the resources to invest in the patent process. This is expensive, and IBM’s weak actual innovation compared to its patent ownership also says something about software patents generally, which are by many patent experts not considered particularly legitimate. It also says something about our patent system that it can be gamed by large companies like IBM that have the resources to put into patent applications creating the illusion of innovation. As a counterpoint, none of the best of breed software vendors that we analyze, that are the most innovative companies have very many patents.
IBM is primarily a serial acquirer for software that it does not improve, and which it then uses its connections into its large customer base to sell into.
Vendor Scores
Honest Vendor Ratings
- VC = Vendor Consulting
- VS = Vendor Support
- QIP = Quality of Information Provided
- IE = Internal Efficiency
- I = Innovation
- C = Category
- ACS = Average Category Score
| Vendor | VC | VS | QIP | IE | I | C | ACG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average Score for the BI Heavy Software Category | 6.4 | 5.3 | 5.1 | 4.5 | 4.4 | BI Heavy | Category Average |
| Average Score for the BI Light Software Category | 7.7 | 6.7 | 5 | 6.3 | 6.8 | BI Light | Category Average |
| Average Score for the CRM Software Category | 5.2 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 3.4 | 3.4 | CRM | Category Average |
| Average Score for the PLM Software Category | 7.3 | 7.5 | 6.3 | 6.2 | 6.3 | PLM | Category Average |
| Average Score for the Production Planning Software Category | 7.3 | 6.7 | 6 | 5.2 | 5.7 | Production Planning | Category Average |
| Average Score for the Small and Medium ERP Software Category | 7.3 | 6.7 | 6.3 | 6.7 | 5.9 | Small and Medium ERP | Category Average |
| Average Score for the Supply Planning Software Category | 7.5 | 6.7 | 6.1 | 5.5 | 5.6 | Supply Planning | Category Average |
| Average Score Score for the Demand Planning Software Category | 7.7 | 6.9 | 6.6 | 6.1 | 6.1 | Demand Planning | Category Average |
| Average Score for the Big ERP Software Category | 4.7 | 3.8 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 2.6 | Big ERP | Category Average |
| Actuate | 7 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 5 | BI Heavy | Application Specific |
| Arena Solutions | 9 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 10 | PLM | Application Specific |
| AspenTech | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 7 | Production Planning | Application Specific |
| Base CRM | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 7 | CRM | Application Specific |
| Birst | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8.5 | 9 | BI Heavy | Application Specific |
| Business Forecast Systems | 9 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 8 | Demand Planning | Application Specific |
| Delfoi | 8 | 8 | 8.5 | 4 | 8 | Production Planning | Application Specific |
| Demand Works | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | Supply Planning | Application Specific |
| ERPNext | 8 | 8 | 8.5 | 10 | 9 | Small and Medium ERP | Application Specific |
| FinancialForce | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 9.5 | Financial | Application Specific |
| Hamilton Grant | 8 | 9.5 | 8 | 9.5 | 8 | PLM | Application Specific |
| Intacct | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9.5 | Financial | Application Specific |
| Intuit | 8 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 6.5 | Financial | Application Specific |
| JDA | 3.5 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | Demand Planning | Application Specific |
| Microsoft | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Small and Medium ERP | Application Specific |
| MicroStrategy | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | BI Heavy | Application Specific |
| NetSuite | 6 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 4 | CRM | Application Specific |
| OpenERP | 7 | 8 | 8.5 | 8 | 7 | Small and Medium ERP | Application Specific |
| Oracle | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Many | Application Specific |
| PlanetTogether | 9 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 10 | Supply Planning | Application Specific |
| Preactor | 7 | 8 | 7.5 | 3 | 3 | Production Planning | Application Specific |
| ProcessPro | 10 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 9 | Small and Medium ERP | Application Specific |
| QlikTech | 8 | 7 | 5 | 8 | 9.5 | CRM | Application Specific |
| Salesforce | 7 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 6 | CRM | Application Specific |
| SAS | 9 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 7 | Demand Planning | Application Specific |
| SugarCRM | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | CRM | Application Specific |
| Tableau | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | BI Light | Application Specific |
| Teradata | 9 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 6 | 8 | BI Heavy | Application Specific |
| ToolsGroup | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | Demand Planning | Application Specific |
| SAP | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Many | Application Specific |
Part of the Following Software Categories
Select the following link(s) if you have subscribed to the following analytical product(s).
Software Selection Package for BI Heavy
Part of the Following Software Categories
Select the following link(s) if you have subscribed to the following analytical product(s).