SharePoint is leading Gartner Magic Quadrant for Horizontal Portals


Gartner recently published a report by Jim Murphy, Gene Phifer, Ray Valdes and Eric Knipp: the 2010 Magic Quadrant for Horizontal Portals.  In the report, Microsoft not only maintains its Leadership ranking but moves into the #1 position on the report – highest on both the Ability to Execute and Completeness of Vision axes – overtaking IBM.

Five vendors dominated portal selections during the latter part of 2009 and into 2010: Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, SAP and Liferay. Microsoft SharePoint is a consideration in more Gartner portal inquiries — over 70% — than any other vendor.

Source: Gartner (September 2010)

http://blogs.technet.com/b/cbortlik/archive/2010/10/19/congratulations-to-sharepoint-product-team-for-achieving-1-ranking-on-gartner-s-2010-horizontal-portals-magic-quadrant.aspx

Comments (10)

  1. A solid movement since 2007 shows a real invetment by Microsoft in SharePoint, no wonder its number one now.

  2. Dan M says:

    Hahaha…  This is exactly why no one should ever take Gartner's magic quadrants seriously.  SharePoint has got to be THE worst portal software ever. I've worked for many companies using it over the years and it is nothing but a black hole for Office documents.  It's an anti-productivity tool: the search feature never works, it's impossible to integrate it with anything other than Microsoft products, and if is actually used you'll wind up using far too much storage and the result will be ridiculous file size limitations.

    Anyone that's seriously considering SharePoint needs to stop: Get yourself a good wiki instead. Your workers will be more productive, it will perform better, and if you don't like it you can migrate to a different one much easier than you could ever migrate off of SharePoint.

  3. OtherKevin says:

    I've worked at a number of companies that have used Sharepoint, and I can say that the quality of the sites varies greatly depending on which company I was working with and how strong their Sharepoint skillset it.  As with many Microsoft technologies, the barrier to entry is fairly low, but gaining proficiency and delivering a quality experience takes significantly more effort than simply installing the product and handing it off to users without modification.  Unfortunately, that's exactly what many people do with Sharepoint, which leads to some people having a negative perception of Sharepoint.  But in all fairness, would anyone in their right mind deploy IBM's, Oracle's, or SAP's portal solution with a vanilla "out of the box install" and expect it to meet all of their needs the same way that they do with Sharepoint?  Not a chance.  In fact, I'd be bowled over if you could even purchase those competing products without an expensive professional services engagement for implementation.

  4. kumar says:

    I have similar experience with other portal products including Sharepoint. Companies that invested in portal product didn't adequately plan for customization and adoption beyond initial product installation. Just having portal tool is not enough, it needs to combine with collaboration and overall information architecture including knowledge management. So any portal deployment should consider all these factors, define the vision and create strategic plan and execute towards that. Unfortunately most of the vendors talk about this until they make a sale, once it's done customers are on their own unless they are ready to spend on consulting.  

  5. PaulJ says:

    Garner needs to add a third  order to the graph 'customer satisfaction', on which from my experience of talking to the near suicidal end users of sharepoint, Microsoft would be very close to the bottom of the pile.

  6. Andrew Loveless says:

    In order to provide some balance here. Have the following observations. SharePoint is very like having the components for a vehicle delivered wiring loom, seats, glass, wheels doors etc. What you then build is up to you. As a company we have built many types of effective vehicles for clients trucks for large whole system change, sports cars for innovation, buses for national health programmes etc. Looking at Dan's comments by supporting teams with appropriate tools and task reduces the need for creation of documents. This approach has worked well in a wide range of sectors health, banking, facilities management, high tech etc.

  7. Andrew B says:

    This article is from 2010!!! Why is it featured on LinkedIn's homepage as breaking news in 2012?

  8. Dan M says:

    @OtherKevin and @Kumar:  I've heard the same arguments over and over again…  "If they'd just take the time to plan it *right*…"  Or "These companies just didn't implement SharePoint properly…"  It's a load of bullocks.  IBM and Oracle's portal products are absolute garbage for the same reason:  They're all in the same category of, "Tools designed for anyone other than end users."

    You see, that's the big difference between SharePoint and any given wiki:  With SharePoint only the business leaders and IT decision-makers can make it better (usually by spending money on more Microsoft software, hah).  With a wiki the *users* can make it better.

    Not only that but the search functions in wikis actually work!  And you call call up any page in your browser without the need to load a gigantic, bloated office suite or a plugin that just does the same in the background.  These pages can even be indexed by external inside-the-company search engines.  They can be linked without requiring a URL that's a mile long.  The links can even be ContextuallyRelevant and MakeSense.

    Compare that with writing an article in Word then "checking it in" to SharePoint where it will be unsearchable and forgotten about forever.  Never mind the file seemingly innumerable annoyances that SharePoint provides in addition to its basic function which seems to be:  Being useless.  It brings nothing to the table.  It enables users to do what, exactly?  What "value add" does it provide?  I can't even fathom what it is *supposed* to be doing because every use of it I've ever seen is nothing more than a glorified file share.

  9. Professional engineer says:

    Funny how people who fail to plan and execute blame the toolset. Ever hears failing to plan i planning to fail? Analogous to blaming my dog for something I never taught him.

    Sharepoint is a framework. It is up to professionals to implement it based on our expected audience. The same "problems" that are claimed against sharepoint exists with any of the other tools.

  10. Birchbranch says:

    Forrester categorizes Sharepoint in a specific portal category, as it can’t be bought as a portal solely.
    I am not a huge SharePoint fan, but I am sure that it is the companies of your failing SharePoint solutions that rather have a failing architecture practice. All MS developments require a strong Enterprise Architecture approach to be successful and long-term
    durable.

Skip to main content