Analysts, influence, and the pointlessness of lists

Aberdeen Group has announced the top 100 influential technology vendors in 2008. I’m assuming this isn’t a prank, since sensible folk like Jason Stamper at CBR have already commented on it. But it isn’t on Aberdeen’s own web site (yet) – I wonder if they’re embarrassed by it

Anyway, the list claims to show the top vendors that “excelled at providing value to the business community” – whatever that means. Jason does a great job of picking holes in the list’s composition, so I won’t repeat them.

So three macro comments:

1. Announcements like these do Aberdeen no favours. It is research generated purely for PR – there’s no other use for it. Are enterprises supposed to rush out and buy stuff only from the top 10? Are they supposed to not buy from the lower ranked vendors? In fact there is no insight, advice or action that can result (sanely) from this list. It’s a list for lists’ sake.
2. It brings into question the purpose of analysts generally. Can we respect the work of a firm that produces such pointless nonsense? This at a time when the very role of analysts is being discussed, here and here. Is Aberdeen really an anlyst firm? I hope not. If I was CIO at one of the “90% of the Fortune 500” or “75% of the Global 500” firms that “rely on Aberdeen's research” I’d have serious look at the value of my subscription. And then probably review my other analyst subscriptions too.
3. What is the point of a list? I think it’s either to recognise and reward performance, in which case it should be based on performance outcomes (like a league table). Or it should be an advisory statement, based on some survey data, that advises and/or challenges you to take note (like SAP’s influence chart). The recent WSJ list of business influencers has merit because it does both – “hats off to the top gurus, and you should be reading these guys…”

A list of 100 technology firms is neither recognition of success nor useful to decision makers. It’s pointless.