Comments on: On Jon Udell, freedom, talent management and the New Patronage economy

By: James Governor’s Monkchips » Thoughts on Open Source Analysis: Response to Armadgeddon

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:56:25 +0000

[...] to Linux - does that mean Linus does what they tell him? They may buy some influence, its true. IBM gets the new patronage model pretty well, and increasingly works collaboratively with a range of constituencies, including [...]

By: James Governor’s Monkchips » Working Towards a Formal Supplier-side IP Policy

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:04:46 +0000

[...] that don’t have IP agreements in place that allow collaborative working according to the New Patronage Economy will be at a serious competitive disadvantage against others that do. You see, collaborators, and [...]

By: James Governor’s Monkchips » Why Microsoft Still Needs Another Scoble. More on Don Ferguson.

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:23:21 +0000

[...] Dave Shields recently argued IBMers should blog from their own platform, rather than through developerworks. I can now see a bloody good reason to do just that. IBM seems to not appreciate some facts about the new patronage economy. People don’t want to make contributions you can nuke. They want to work for you but have some small degree of autonomy. Deleting blogs is like editing blogs when nobody is looking. It just smells wrong. Can you imagine if Cote left and we deleted peopleoverprocess? Self-defeating I am sure you’d agree. What if Bobby Woolf joined Microsoft? How much IBM SOA documentation would be lost? [...]

By: tech decentral » links for 2007-01-05

tech decentral » links for 2007-01-05 — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 23:32:57 +0000

[...] James Governor’s Monkchips » Blog Archive » On Jon Udell, freedom, talent management and the New Patronage economy destined to be a classic. (tags: open-source-analysis patronage sponsorship business-models) [...]

By: George Goodall

George Goodall — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:04:58 +0000

Transparency is certainly a noble goal. However, one threat of full transparency is the imposition of a type of Glass-Steagall between buy-side and sell-side analysts in the larger analyst firms. I wonder how many analysts–particularly on the buy side–are totally aware of what’s going on with the vendor or consulting side of the house. Individual analysts may have no idea of whether or not particular vendors are clients. The glass wall of impartiality could already exist due to the vagaries of sales and marketing.

By: jgovernor

jgovernor — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:11:08 +0000

Great stuff George. thanks for taking the ideas seriously - that is how they were meant- and for the history lesson. I have considered the Enderle issue. One opportunity is to be sponsored by two houses-the Medicis and The Borgias…

seriously though- I think I am describing something I see in action, rather than saying how i would like the world to be.

Also - everyone knew who Galileo’s patrons. it when the patronage is a secret that real problems arise. transparency is a requirement for the new patronage.

Also - Enderle’s flaying is something that could be applied to any analyst firm. I think its impossible to 100% remove conflicts of interest, even if your clients are pure sell or buy side. However these conflicts can be managed and ameliorated - through transparency, for one.

But somewhere along the line someone is always paying the piper.

By: George Goodall

George Goodall — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:02:34 +0000

Patronage may not be the best way to support independent voices. Consider Galileo’s discovery of the “Medician Stars”, four moons of Jupiter, in late 1609. That same year Cosimo de Medici, Galileo’s former pupil, was promoted as Grand Duke of Tuscany. Seeking patronage, Galileo named the newly discovered moons after the four Medici brothers and wrote the Sidereus Nuncius documenting his discovery. Cosimo recognized Galileo’s brilliance and quickly sent copies of this book to the various rulers of Christendom along with new Galileo-designed telescopes. These rulers were then invited to gaze upon these new Medician stars blazing far above the earthly plane.

There is no doubt that Galileo was brilliant nor that the Sidereus Nuncius was a crucial work for the development of modern science. Part of Galileo’s success came from his marketing prowess in getting a copy of his book (analyst report?) into the hands of every major patron.

Most analysts aren’t Galileo. But consider Rob Enderle. His recent professional flaying by the NYT and the Register speaks to some of my concerns with the patronage model. Fortunately neither of these two media outlets can place Enderle under house arrest or force him to recant his position on Microsoft. If the Vatican become a major tech supplier Enderle may have something to worry about.