Cringely asks the question about IT analysts that more people ought to ask: why?

So Gartner and, by association, Gartner's competitors help customers make better IT decisions. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But why do governments and big companies NEED help making IT decisions? Don't most companies hire IT professionals to make those decisions in the first place? Do they really need to spend more than $2 billion per year between these consulting companies just to make better IT decisions?

It's a broader topic that goes far beyond analyst firms though. Consider the following all too common scenario (which I've seen from both ends):

• Your company has a problem. Many of the internal staff understand the problem, and have recommended a solution
• The executives are baffled by the problem, and don't know what to do
• An outside consultant is brought in to make a recommendation
• The consultant recommends a solution - the same one that the staff has been agitating for
• Now that said solution has been blessed by an "expert", it's ok to try it

Lots of companies develop an interesting mindset towards their own staff, seeing them as no better than errant children. Gobs of money end up being wasted on outside firms (analysts and consultants) who do no more than recommend what your own staff already knows. Only when the "outside expert" made the case was it a safe decision though.

Ultimately, what this says is that the old adage tends to be very true: a fish rots from the top.

Technorati Tags: analysts