Don't miss our upcoming Network Computing virtual event on Connectivity Solutions - Secure Your Complementary Seat Now!
Does it matter when we and Network Computing say that a vendor has declined to participate in a review, due to 'lack of resources'? Most of the it seems like a copout to me. Just the PC thing to say in a magazine article. We spend a lot of time trying to get vendors into reviews, and when we miss a vendor we hear about it, at least from their sales folk. But does the reason make any difference to anyone?
Sure spending time to research who the right vendors are, and then taking to time understanding their technology, products, positioning and perceived competitors, only to have a vendor claim to 'not have the resources' to participate in a review, ticks all of us technical editors off. I mean is it really possible that IBM, and Cisco, don't have the resources?
I've had vendors, like Mercury and Netscout consistently decline to participate in comparative reviews, which as a policy is understandable. Why risk losing, after all there is usually only one winner. We talk ourselves blue in the face, explaining that readers really want the short list or good products, but of course in the marketplace winning needs no explanation, and second place can't be explained. So while I 'understand' not wanting to participate, I'd really rather vendors just tell us that it's not in their best interest to be compared instead of claiming a 'lack of resources'.
Developing and managing a network budget is hard work for network professionals, who often get hit with new projects that they know nothing about. Is there a better way to manage network spending?
Making the jump from outdated legacy technology to a more modern digital infrastructure will allow businesses to innovate at the speed and scale needed in today’s marketplace.
The business world is speeding up. The longer IT leaders wait to get their needs met, the more at risk their businesses and their jobs will be.
