Projects start with a structured planning and review process. In partnership with the research lead, analysts draw from their expertise in the field and rigorous secondary desk research to build an initial picture of the market and the vendor solutions within it.

Vendors that may be a fit for the report are alerted to the upcoming research as part of a pre-briefing campaign several weeks in advance of the briefing window. This campaign asks vendors to confirm their contact information, informs them when the briefing window will occur, and lets them know the analyst is working on refining the scope and inclusion criteria. During the research planning stage, analysts may determine that some vendors that were part of the initial pre-briefing campaign are not a good fit for the report, in which case those vendors are notified and removed from further consideration.

Analysts then set the scope of the report, the inclusion criteria, and the decision criteria that will be used to rate solutions. The proposed content then undergoes extensive internal review to ensure it’s reflective of the market and follows GigaOm’s methodology.

The data gathering stage is twofold:

1. The first step of Data Gathering is GigaOm sends vendors a tailored questionnaire to help analysts understand and evaluate their offering and invites vendors to schedule a briefing to confirm analyst understanding and explore recent changes and knowledge gaps. We kindly request that vendors submit their answered questionnaire before the briefing so analysts have time to review before the call and can focus the conversation on exploring any remaining knowledge gaps. During the briefing, the analyst takes detailed notes and may record the presentation. GigaOm does not provide a copy of the recording to participating vendors. The briefing window lasts 15 business days.
2. Second, analysts conduct independent desk research on vendors, reviewing publicly available information on vendor websites to validate vendor claims and analysts’ own preliminary findings.

During the data gathering stage, analysts may determine that some vendors are not a good fit for the report, in which case those vendors are notified and removed from further consideration.

For scoring key features, emerging features, and business criteria in Radar reports, GigaOm uses a 0 to 5 scale, where 0 means the decision criterion is not available, 1 indicates the feature is poorly executed, and 5 means the feature is executed exceptionally well.

The five-point scale breaks down as follows:

GigaOm also applies a standard weighting for decision criteria—weightings are determined by a holistic assessment of the net impact the decision criteria have on solution value:

Every GigaOm Radar and Key Criteria report is subject to formal reviews to verify research scope, establish criteria for assessment, and assure quality of analysis. Reviews include a technical review (conducted by the research lead), a peer review (conducted by a separate analyst who is also a subject matter expert in the area), and a quality review (conducted by the research lead and the content team). These reviews are performed at both the early research scoping stage and later draft submission stage, ensuring the research adheres to our values and meets product expectations.

Every GigaOm Radar report goes through a fact check stage, and all vendors evaluated in the Radar are invited to participate in a fact check review. During the fact-check review process, we provide each vendor a link to the in-progress report with the write-ups and scoring for other vendors removed.

In scope for fact check:

• Vendors are asked to note statements of factual inaccuracy related to their scores and product write-up only.
• Vendors should note statements of factual inaccuracy by leaving a comment in the fact check doc, and feedback within the comment should be limited to ~100 words.
• Vendors may request revisions to correct factual inaccuracies related to their scores and/or product write-up provided they offer supporting documentation to the analyst for review that shows the feature is generally available (not in beta or preview) at the time of fact check.

Out of scope for fact check:

• Comments or requested rewrites to the main sections of the report (Executive Summary, Market Categories and Deployment Types, Decision Criteria Comparison, and Analyst’s Overview) will not be considered.
• Comments or issues with other vendors’ placement on the Radar graphic will not be considered.
• Requested rewrites that do not address a factual inaccuracy and attempt to insert promotional language or marketing copy will not be considered.
• Marketing literature is not considered suitable evidence at fact check.

If feedback is received that does not follow this guidance, the response may be discarded and vendors will be given one opportunity to resubmit.

The Radar chart shared with vendors at fact check reflects our findings based on data gathered during briefings and/or desk research. It is subject to change and not a final chart. Every vendor is invited to participate in this process and request corrections of factual inaccuracies. If scores for key features, emerging features, or business criteria change as a result of corrections, it will impact positioning of vendors in the final chart.

The fact check review period typically lasts five business days, after which the analyst takes five business days to review vendor feedback and make adjustments as needed to correct inaccuracies.

Note that revision requests and documentation received outside the five-day fact check review window are not guaranteed inclusion in the final report. Additionally, at this stage, any requests for briefings fall outside of our standard process. In both cases (late vendor feedback and/or late requests for briefings), such requests or subsequent escalations are not guaranteed and are instead considered on a case-by-case basis and require approval from GigaOm’s executive leadership.

Following the fact check review period, the analyst takes five business days to respond to feedback and update scores, the Radar graphic, and product write-ups as needed to correct factual inaccuracies. These deliverables are then considered final and the report is moved into our publishing queue.