The innovator dilemma:
You can’t get recommended if you’re creating a new category that can’t be classified.
Most enterprise charts are based on a crowded category where commodity problems are solved and the baseline is high.
Innovation is a 0 to 1 game, similarly to Peter Thiel’s first startup principles. Disrupting a core business problem with no representation is a competitive advantage, but forming that new category is an expensive education play.
On the parallel end, traditional education is lagging with another 4 to 8 years at least (rolling our a new speciality in university and reaching graduation in a few years).
Decide if you want to compete in a proven enterprise space with MQ or similar charts.
Innovating is an entirely different motion.
“We’re innovating but can’t get on the Gartner Magic Quadrant. What do we do?”
I’ve authored an MQ. I’ve also been there as a vendor. Here’s the problem:
Every dollar invested is a vote for who we are and how we differentiate ourselves.
But the MQ kinda forces all vendors to vote on the same features.
You have to, bc you’re required to meet criteria to get on it
(and the investors are pushing for that).
Our R&D goals are all largely the same because of the MQ. We already have a lot to fight, as vendors, about the roadmap: there’s what your customers need, and there’s everything else.
MQ falls in the “everything else” bucket and it fights for the same budget as customer features.
This is the paradox.
To innovate, you have to invest money in stuff others aren’t doing.
To get into the MQ, you have to invest money in the same things everyone else is doing.
It really is that simple.
Yes, you can invest in MQ criteria and maybe land in the Visionaries quadrant if you still manage to use a few spare bucks to do something interesting.
But the market opportunity has to be there (an actual problem others aren’t solving that you CAN solve). It’s tough to do and the window is small, especially in an established market.
But the true innovators do something different:
they **haven’t joined the MQ at all**
And they have the most advantage because they’re not tied up by those same constraints. The MQ is not useful for startups, newcomers, or innovators, bc it just magnifies what’s already working in the market.
That’s literally what it’s designed to do.
It helps buyers choose the mainstream, obvious, low-risk options.
So…. if you want to innovate, don’t chase the MQ.
Ironically, that’s what will make you the MQ leader a few years down the line (bc you’ll have redefined the market, which the MQ is trying to describe)
What I wrestle with most is: How can we help investors understand this?
