Comments on: Who is Rob Koplowitz?

By: Joely Urton

Joely Urton — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:29:52 +0000

I have worked with Rob on the vendor side and found his knowledge to be pretty deep and broad in the enterprise collaboration space. His advice pragmatic and actionable. In reading this post a few times, I have to agree with Mike Gotta that this appears to be a personal attack on Rob and not a critical discussion or deepening the conversation on how companies can accelerate and innovate. It would have been much better to frame this discussion a different way that focused on concepts and ideas that you disagreed with rather than questioning Rob’s background.

By: Kyle McNabb

Kyle McNabb — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:03:59 +0000

I too work with Rob, and I’ve been a reader of FASTForward for some time. I’ve heard numerous organizations point out how he, and other analysts (not just Forrester), do ask the right questions with regards to Web 2.0.

Too many individuals look at Web 2.0 in isolation – as separate technology or as a separate movement. To many others, Web 2.0 is but a piece of a much broader context of how people work and interact, and how technology not just supports how we work, but in some cases embodies what we do.

I think Rob, and many others, ask the questions many Web 2.0 advocates don’t want answered. Answers he provides paint a balanced picture for organizations, and helps put Web 2.0 into a different, and bigger context. He, and others like him, give answers that help organizations move forward with confidence, and without taking on unnecessary or unwarranted risks. After all, it is about evolution, not revolution.

By: Paula Thornton

Paula Thornton — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 05:31:42 +0000

I am calling into question Rob’s ability and authority to speak on 2.0, not his background in technology, or how impressive it is.

My earlier post clearly pointed out that if people were to follow his advice they could likely hamper their ability to move forward.

This IS significant and it IS relevant to our conversation.

Now if you’d like to move the conversation forward…focus on the questions I’ve raised and debate those, not my method for raising them.

By: Harald Collet

Harald Collet — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:55:00 +0000

This is unusual in the tone and the way it targets Rob’s background and expertise. Paula paints 20 years of industry expertise as an independent consultant, and with Lotus, Oracle, and Microsoft as a negative? With innuendo to boot that Rob’s independent research is tainted and by his prior work experiences, which couldn’t be further from the truth. In soccer, we call it ‘going after the man instead of the ball,’ and that’s poor sportsmanship.

I’d like to echo Mike and Alan’s comments on Rob’s impressive track record. I’ve known Rob for more than 5 years and is a frequent consumer of his excellent research reports at Forrester. He’s an insightful analyst who understands enterprise IT and where it is going better than anyone in the industry.

Last, the stated aim of the FastForward blog is to ‘drive and deepen conversation about how today’s companies can “Innovate, Accelerate and Dominate” and is home to ongoing discussion about the user revolution and Enterprise 2.0 opportunities and challenges.’

The post on ‘Who is Rob Koplowitz’ seems to fall outside this mission since it doesn’t honestly engage in a discussion of either Enterprise 2.0 or Rob’s actual research. In short, take the high road and go for the actual arguments instead of the man (it’s also more interesting to read).

By: Paula Thornton

Paula Thornton — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:07:55 +0000

Per Mike’s comments, two critical responses:
1. As all public figures know, their name becomes a brand. A bad experience with the product/service reflects badly and is discussed based on the brand name.
2. 2.0 is the means for elitism to be challenged. It provides more channels and more access to accomplish things that previously had high barriers to entry (e.g. all writing had to be ‘published’ and go through an entire editorial process…which often ’silenced’ a lot of otherwise great messages). Rob may have an impressive background and is a great guy. His ‘fruits’ don’t bear enough to earn my respect for him as a credible voice for certain topics. That’s my opinion, substantiated by the various samples I included in the piece. Had my research shown anything that would make me question this, I would have hesitated to express the opinion. It was not offered lightly or without considerable thought.

By: vanderwal

vanderwal — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:00:27 +0000

Mike, I agree that being an analyst is tough, really tough. We put our selves out there with every statement. I don’t think the character of Rob is being challenged, it is the value of his content in these segment of the marketplace. I don’t mind paying for an analysts perspective if it adds value. But, when it is lacking value is when it is problematic.

What is also problematic is when a customer of mine holds on to a report they paid for from a trusted source (Forrester, Gartner, etc.) and they trust the report more than their own experience and the work I have done with them. Often the customer takes steps backwards in these instances (I get paid more to help them re-sort out what was previously clear, but they need to be moving forward, which is my goal and is their goal).

There are relatively few analysts in this market segment that grasp what is going on, but there are many voices. There is an increasing split in the marketplace for analysis, individual voices are standing out separate from the firms. My trust in what you (Mike) say is high, but that may not translate fully to Burton Group. This is increasingly common with many enterprise customers I am running into, they are learning to discern the valued individual voices in the amalgamated brands of analysts, like Forrester.

Sadly, Ron may be a great guy, but his content that Forrester is selling has relatively low value. Ron as a brand and a point of focus is what I think is being drawn into question. Getting an understanding into background and motivations is helpful when trying to work through analysis that is quite counter to common understanding from those who are looking at the same subject with critical eyes and understand the market segment.

I am always on the look out for great content, analysts, and reports to point my customers to. If it supports my consulting, advice, and analysis great, but I also will point to items that are really valuable that are counter to what I think as it helps think through the “it depends” moments. Knowing what is good and what is of poor value along these lines is important and why it has the value is more important.

By: Mike Gotta

Mike Gotta — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:25:10 +0000

assination = assassination … sad, but spelling-challenged this early in the morning

By: Mike Gotta

Mike Gotta — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:54:24 +0000

As an analyst, we do put our chin out when we present our positions, and I think it is perfectly acceptable to criticize those positions, to challenge assumptions, identify gaps in reasoning, advice and so on. I think it becomes a different debate when the commentary targets the individual rather than the argument being presented. I’ve read this post multiple times and it comes across as character assination – as a personal critique vs. a critique of the work. I’ve known Rob since his days at Oracle. He is indeed a “nice guy” as Alan puts it.

You may have had a different intent – but the delivery in my opinion missed the target entirely. Do I disagree with some of the positions Rob might take – sure – but I would debate the logic (and flaws) of the argument, not the individual.

By: vanderwal

vanderwal — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:42:27 +0000

I was listening in on a webinar today from Six Apart’s Movable Type on the subject of enterprise 2.0 with Anil Dash of Six Apart and Charlene Li and Rob Koplowitz from Forrester. Anil and Charlene were fantastic as they grasped the subject, had a depth of information and relevant insight. But that same value was not coming from Rob he had the job of dealing with the fear of 2.0 (risk, governance, compliance, and privacy), which he laid out, but did not offer solutions. He had a long story that was not relevant to technology or really web 2.0 (other than it was a web 2.0 company that applied poor thinking and deep lack of understanding of social interaction).

I am a huge fan of Charlene Li and the work she does at Forrester on Web 2.0, Social Computing (software), and enterprise 2.0, but Rob does not bring remotely close to the same understanding. I could have used a lot more of Charlene’s input today, as well of Anil’s, but almost nothing of Rob’s input added value other than one line about low cost of the tools making use valuable. Rob’s subject area is one that is part of every customer engagement of mine and there are many viable solutions, but no examples were offered.

By: Paula Thornton

Paula Thornton — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:14:27 +0000

I'm not the only one having issues with Rob's advice (e.g. that' he's not covering the 'real' issues). A CIO piece from September highlighting Rob's advice drew more insights in the comments than Rob offered in his report. Paul Lopez states very clearly the real issues: "The consumerization of IT with Web 2.0 has many implications beyond technology. New social interaction patterns and the need for businesses to adapt to consumer-side economics will affect all IT organizations." The other comments were equally relevant.