This just in:  One of our customers recently completed a product review of our asset management software, Express Software Manager, version 9.0.  The evaluation was submitted to the ITAM Review and is, according to Martin Thompson, the highest end-user score received to date (90%).  Terrific!

The end-user customer is an environmental engineering firm with an estate size of roughly 580 machines (27% desktops, 60% laptops, and 13% servers).

Read the entire Express Software Manager review here.

To the customer who completed the review:  Many thanks for taking the time, and for helping raise Express Metrix’s visibility in a very competitive market. 

(more…)

I just read an interesting article by Infoworld’s Bill Snyder, examining what he describes as an inherent lack of neutrality among technology analysts that hinges on “the common practice of selling research and consulting services to the very companies whose products it evaluates.”  Snyder argues that analyst firms should be required to reveal potential conflicts of interest by disclosing their list of clients and associated spending. (This would be akin to the new regulations imposed on financial ratings agencies.) 

In the column, Snyder interviews a small company, ZL Technologies, that recently filed a lawsuit against Gartner, claiming the research firm inflicted significant economic damage by bestowing upon it the kiss of death—the lowest ranking in the “Gartner Magic Quadrant”—allegedly based on nothing more than the company’s lack of financial clout and marketing muscle. (You can read the text of the entire lawsuit here.)  Though obviously biased, it’s a fascinating read and offers a blistering indictment of a business model that has raised the ire of both vendors and end-users alike ever since research analysts first appeared on the scene. (For a good chuckle, here’s my favorite excerpt:  “At the core of this action…an economic model championed by Defendants that elevates marketing puffery over serious technology.” Wish I could claim credit for that one!)

(more…)

This is the final post in my blog series addressing the many myths and misconceptions about agent-based IT asset management technology.  The four parts to the series are as follows:

1. Intro: The Great Debate
2. Agent Deployment
3. Data Collection
4. Network and End-User Impact

(more…)

This post is part 3 of 4 of a series of articles addressing many of the common misconceptions associated with agent-based asset management solutions.  The four parts in this series are:

1. Intro: The Great Debate
2. Agent Deployment
3. Data Collection
4. Network and End-User Impact

(more…)

This post is part 2 of 4 of a series of articles addressing many of the common misconceptions associated with agent-based asset management solutions.  The four parts to the series are as follows:

1. Intro: The Great Debate
2. Agent Deployment
3. Data Collection
4. Network and End-User Impact

(more…)