To all: A fellow named GUS on the EMC thread, whom I am extremely impressed by has two posts today, one after the other, that I think should also be here on the SUNW thread. The first one has to do with Storage and how customers rate the Vendors. Remember storage is not SUNW's sole business but here is how they fared, the second post has to do with WHY and HOW customers select vendors. Both good reading IMHO. JDN
Speaking out on Storage
How customers ranked their enterprise storage vendors in the following categories
PRODUCT RELIABILITY
1. EMC
2. Compaq
3. IBM
4. Hewlett Packard
5. Sun Microsystems
6. Dell
7. Seagate
8. Network Appliance
9. Storage Technology
PRODUCT INNOVATION
1. EMC
2. Sun Microsystems
3. IBM
3. Hewlett Packard
3. Network Appliance
6. Compaq
7. Storage Technology
8. Dell
9. Seagate
SERVICE-LEVEL GUARANTEES
1. EMC
2. Dell
3. IBM
4. Sun Microsystems
5. Compaq
6. Hewlett Packard
7. Network Appliance
7. Storage Technology
9. Seagate
AFTER-SALE SERVICE
1. EMC
2. Dell
3. IBM
4. Compaq
4. Sun Microsystems
6. Hewlett Packard
6. Storage Technology
8. Seagate
9. Network Appliance
OVERALL PRODUCT VALUE
1. Compaq
2. Dell
3. Hewlett Packard
4. IBM
5. EMC
5. Sun Microsystems
5. Network Appliance
8. Seagate
9. Storage Technology
STRATEGIC UNDERSTANDING
1. IBM
2. Dell
3. Storage Technology
4. Hewlett Packard
5. Sun Microsystems
6. Seagate
7. EMC
8. Compaq
9. Network Appliance
GLOBAL EXPERTISE
1. IBM
2. EMC
3. Hewlett Packard
3. Sun Microsystems
5. Compaq
5. Storage Technology
7. Seagate
8. Dell
9. Network Appliance
VENDOR RESPONSIVENESS
1. Dell
2. EMC
3. Sun Microsystems
4. Network Appliance
5. Hewlett Packard
5. Storage Technology
7. IBM
7. Seagate
9. Compaq
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS
1. EMC
2. Compaq
3. Dell
3. Storage Technology
5. Hewlett Packard
6. Sun Microsystems
6. Seagate
6. Network Appliance
9. IBM
EASE OF ADMINISTRATION
1. Compaq
2. Network Appliance
3. Dell
4. Hewlett Packard
4. Sun Microsystems
6. IBM
6. Storage Technology
8. EMC
8. Seagate
*Multiple rankings indicate a tie.
Note: 50 customers reviewed each vendor on a variety of attributes, including a 1-10 scale where 1 is not at all satisfied and 10 is extemely satisfied. Averages were used to define the rankings.
DATA: InformationWeek Research analyzing the vendors 2000 - Enterprise Storage Survey of 385 IT Professionals
informationweek.com
Survey Methodology: How Vendors Were Ranked
By Lisa Boomer, Managing Editor, Research
The Analyzing the Vendors series is designed to give IT professionals the results of customer evaluations to simplify purchasing decisions. For this report, more than 600 IT professionals responded to an E-mail invitation in September to evaluate their enterprise storage vendors. Those professionals had to meet two key criteria to qualify for inclusion in the study: They had to be personally involved in the purchase or evaluation of enterprise storage products and services, and their company must have had at least one of a specified list of enterprise storage vendors' products installed. A total of 385 respondents met both qualifications and were surveyed.
Qualifying respondents evaluated a maximum of three storage vendors based on which vendors' products were installed in their companies. Each enterprise storage vendor had to achieve a minimum level of 50 completed interviews to ensure stable data analysis.
Customers evaluated each vendor across several buying criteria to measure satisfaction levels, including product reliability, overall product value, strategic understanding, and product innovation. The attributes were then weighted by InformationWeek Research based on customers' preferences about what is important to them in the purchase decision. A vendor's overall ranking was calculated, and each vendor's customer-satisfaction scores were indexed to 1,000, forming the basis of the overall satisfaction ranking.
For a comprehensive report on the current customer evaluations, please go to informationweek .com/reports. If you have suggestions on future topics for evaluation, please let us know at lboomer@cmp.com
informationweek.com |
