2016: The Year Gartner’s Enterprise BI Magic Quadrant Became A Ghost Town

by | Nov 9, 2016 | Analysis, Business Intelligence

gartner-animated-mq

The following is an interview I conducted with Jeff Carr, CEO and Founder of SlamData regarding the trends in enterprise business intelligence.


Chris
According to Gartner, there’s been a big shift in the way it’s seeing the whole Enterprise BI space. Can you walk us through the key observations each year and then let’s talk about the trends and what’s behind those.

Jeff
Sure, of course. If you look back the last three years of Gartner and Magic Quadrants for Business Intelligence and Analytics Solutions, starting in 2014 on the left side you see what I would refer to as a standard distribution for one of these Gartner charts. What that means it’s a linear distribution from lower left corner to upper right corner. You can draw a straight line right through the middle of those contenders. Again they all fall roughly on either side of that line. They’re very linear distribution and you’ve got players in all of the different quadrants, varying numbers. You also have a significant number of players, over a dozen, in the upper half. The upper half is challengers and leaders which is where you want to be.

Moving forward to 2015, everyone drops down. You have less players in the upper half and everyone’s clustered around the center, the crosshairs of this chart if you will. You’ve got a significant move down and everyone’s bunching together in the middle, so a very non-linear distribution. Then as you move ahead yet one more year to 2016, then you have everybody essentially collapsing into the lower half of the chart. You have a completely empty challenger quadrant and you have only three contenders.

You have a completely empty challenger quadrant and you have only three contenders.

If you recall we had twelve contenders in the upper half of the chart, the challenger leader part of the quadrant, in 2014. Just two years later that number is now three so it’s dropped by a factor of four. In this case almost everyone is clustered down in the lower half of the chart.

What that means is you’ve seen a steady and dramatic drop from just 2014 to 2016, just two years. You see a steady, dramatic drop from the upper half to the lower half of the chart. What that demonstrates is just a lack of innovation and leadership.

Chris
It’s certainly not like parts falling off the car. Their products aren’t deteriorating so it’s something else. It’s lack of innovation vis-a-vis what the context is. Can you talk a little bit about what businesses were doing in 2014 and what they’re doing now.

Jeff
What’s driving this is not that their tools have changed much. They’re actually very similar to what they were two years ago. It’s the data that they’re trying to access and analyze has gotten significantly more complicated, much more complex. You’re seeing a proliferation of new kinds of data stores, NoSQL data stores… and even cloud API’s. Cloud API’s are becoming the new databases if you will. You’ve got over 200,000 API’s on the web today and behind each of those API’s is massive amounts of data and in many cases data that people want to access.

Again what’s changed from 2014 to 2016 is that the complexity and the amount of kinds of data that enterprises just need to be able to access efficiently has gone way up.

The tools are operating essentially in the same mode they were before that happened and that’s what’s causing the drop in satisfaction and drop in capabilities for these tools.

The tools are operating essentially in the same mode they were before that happened and that’s what’s causing the drop in satisfaction and drop in capabilities for these tools.

Chris
In 2017 what are we going to see? What are the innovators that are going to occupy that top going to be doing?

Jeff
I think what the market needs right now is a new approach to solving these problems. The existing approaches, based on last generation technology, just obviously aren’t working which is why we’re seeing this drop in satisfaction for the existing vendors. What the market needs is an approach that can be easily adapted to modern data sources. I view the idea of data sources or data models as an N plus one problem where we’ve added a bunch of new ways to store and consume data in the last few years and will continue to do that over the next ten, twenty, thirty years. The problem will just get worse not better in terms of data complexity and volume.

What’s required is a different approach and an approach that’s more agile that allows a solution, and in this case like SlamData, to talk or connect to any source of data quickly, regardless of what that source is or where it exists, whether it’s a new database, a new data model or a cloud API.

What’s required is a different approach and an approach that’s more agile that allows a solution, and in this case like SlamData, to talk or connect to any source of data quickly, regardless of what that source is or where it exists, whether it’s a new database, a new data model or a cloud API. I think architecturally we’re seeing a shift in how people think about accessing data. From first generation, which is largely what you see in the existing Magic Quadrants, where were based around a fairly narrowly defined relational data model, to something that’s much more agile and flexible. I would argue that that’s the age of the data compiler or the analytic compiler that we’re promoting.

Social

Chris Dima

Director of Marketing at SlamData
Chris runs marketing at SlamData. He chants "No ETL" in his sleep. He has three girls. He can still ollie.
Social

Native Analytics On MongoDb, Couchbase, MarkLogic and Hadoop.

No mapping. No ETL.

Download It Now

Recent News & Blogs

SlamData Secures $6.7MM Series A to Support Modern Data in the Enterprise

Boulder, Colo., February 23, 2017 – SlamData Inc., the leading open source analytics company for modern unstructured data today announced that it has raised a $6.7M Series A funding round, led by Shasta Ventures. The investment will drive further development of the firm’s breakthrough analytics solution: a single application for natively exploring, visualizing and embedding analytics against unstructured data sources including NoSQL, Hadoop, and cloud API’s.

read more

Getting Started With SlamData – Part 1

Welcome to the SlamData getting started video. Let’s jump right in. By default, SlamData runs on port 20223. You can change the port it runs on by modifying the quasar-config.json file. By default, this file is located in the following directories on Windows, Mac and Linux.

read more

Who Is Using SlamData?

Whitepaper: The Characteristics of NoSQL Analytics Systems

by John De Goes, CTO and Co-Founder of SlamData

Overview

Semi­structured data, called NoSQL data in this paper, is growing at an unprecedented rate.  This growth is fueled, in part, by the proliferation of web and mobile applications, APIs, event­-oriented data, sensor data, machine learning, and the Internet of Things, all of which are disproportionately powered by NoSQL technologies and data models.

This paper carves out a single concern, by focusing on the system­-level capabilities required to derive maximum analytic value from a generalized model of NoSQL data. This approach leads to eight well­-defined, objective characteristics, which collectively form a precise capabilities­-based definition of a NoSQL analytics system.

These capabilities are inextricably motivated by use cases, but other considerations are explicitly ignored. They are ignored not because they are unimportant (quite the contrary), but because they are orthogonal to the raw capabilities a system must possess to be capable of deriving analytic value from NoSQL data.

Table of Contents

  • Overview
  • The Nature of NoSQL Data
    • APIs
    • NoSQL Databases
    • Big Data
    • A Generic Data Model for NoSQL
  • Approaches to NoSQL Analytics
    • Coding & ETL
    • Hadoop
    • Real-Time Analytics
    • Relational Model Virtualization
    • First-Class NoSQL Analytics
  • Characteristics of NoSQL Analytics Systems
    • Generic Data Model
    • Isomorphic Data Model
    • Multi-Dimensionality
    • Unified Schema/Data
    • Post-Relational
    • Polymorphic Queries
    • Dynamic Type Discovery & Conversion
    • Structural Patterns

 

 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.