So, this year's MQ is out. And guess what? Kryon is not on it. Why the hell not? The answer is simple. Kryon didn’t meet ONE of Gartner’s arcane and outdated selection criteria, which has nothing to do with the attributes that are most important to the enterprise community, like product innovation, service and customer value, and references, and everything to do with narrow-minded and obsolescent benchmarks. Gartner – get with the times! Not only have you done a severe injustice to vendors who have demonstrated a high impact on the market, but you have also misrepresented the RPA market and disserved Gartner clients.
Our exclusion was all about one number. Our revenue figures fell slightly short of the arbitrary cut-off imposed by Gartner. Part of Kryon’s business model is selling under white label (OEM). Gartner would not agree to include that as part of our revenue impact on the market, and based on that decision, we were not even evaluated for the quadrant. As part of our business, this further represents consistent and linear demand of our solution and most definitely exceeded their inclusion criteria. Kryon chose to grow organically and carefully by having superior technology and not through huge cash infusions from outside investors. We’ve chosen innovation over quick growth. Independence over me-too solutions. We focus on what really matters: product innovation, agility to meet customers’ specific needs, and excellent service.
The only RPA vendor providing the first real end-to-end automation solution. Full-Cycle Automation combines Process Discovery, RPA and analytics in a single, unified platform. According to recent Forrester Research, Kryon Full-Cycle Automation™ maximizes ROI by 352% and cuts RPA implementation time by up to 80%. In the study, Forrester also estimates that Kryon Full-Cycle Automation saves 60% of RPA developers’ time for every process that is automated and identifies up to 75% more processes than with just RPA alone. And because it shortens the time to deploy RPA, total benefits from an RPA program with Full-Cycle Automation in place are estimated at 37% higher. Now those are numbers that mean something. Why don’t they matter to Gartner?
I challenge the analysts or other RPA vendors to show better impact on their customers.
Innovation and results matter to customers. One look at a LinkedIn survey we launched several days ago shows what any thinking, reasonable person knows. The survey asked: “What matters the most when choosing a technology vendor?” More than 55% selected “innovation and product, followed by 22% for “support/professional services,” and 21% for “customer references/reviews.” Only a paltry 1% indicated that “annual revenue” mattered most. Need I say more?
Service matters – a lot. Our customers are satisfied, and they say so. That’s something that makes us extremely proud. Kryon’s most recent Net Promoter Score (NPS), a key indicator of overall customer satisfaction, was +68, the highest in the industry. Our June NPS score beat our prior score, already way above average at +61. This rise is a testament to our constant dialogue with customers and continued product innovation to make their experiences better, drive more ROI, and increase their bottom lines.
Others in the tech community agree. A chorus of voices is frequently protesting Gartner’s rigid and skewed methodology. The Magic Quadrant has come under fire increasingly over the past decade, including several lawsuits over it. Forrester’s Wave assessment and other reports give a more holistic view of the RPA vendor landscape, using a more transparent methodology that doesn’t include revenue barriers. And it’s one reason there are so many new, respected analyst firms in the market. Like technology innovators, they may not be the biggest, but they’re independent, passionate and well-informed.
It is time for self-reflection – time for you to make a change to be more innovative in thinking, agile and relevant – just like the companies you research. I am sure it will bring more value to the market.
So, Gartner, it’s ludicrous not to represent a player with exceptional technology, just because we didn’t meet one criterion, and one which does not reflect the actual impact on the market. It’s a tremendous disservice to Gartner’s constituents. We believe that the value of a technology solution should be determined by its product innovation and its impact on customers. Period. What do you think? Leave a comment below.
You can also read my op-ed, Is the Gartner Magic Quadrant Obsolete? at TechNewsWorld.