Writing Rules

Background

Clearly there is a great deal of biased information offered by market experts in a variety of fields, and this is certainly true of enterprise software. We often write about this bias, and how it leads to poor decisions being made. This bias in information sources is why an economist would consider the enterprise software market as very inefficient. Efficient markets require good information, and if the bias, particularly financial bias results in inefficiency. This is particularly true for any product or services which is bought by one set of individuals (executives in this case) but used by others (planners).

The Higher Burden of Evidence we Bear

Due to the fact that we take positions that are counter to conventional wisdom, and that we write many things that other sources of information on the internet will not (because of both financial incentives and self censorship), and that are often critical of the largest companies in the enterprise software space, we have to be more clear about our internal incentives than outlets that simply serve as stenographers the big brand names. (In fact the easiest way to build credibility with the least amount of effort, is to simply repeat what others are writing or saying. Its low effort, because as long as you simply repeat “conventional pieties,” you are not required to present evidence. Also, your bias will be less questioned.)

The Rules We Follow

One of the reasons we started this site was because of the commercial nature of so much information on the supply chain enterprise software market. Bias can be controlled by simply following a few rules, call them journalistic integrity if you like. These are rules that very few information outlets follow, because it is so expensive to follow them. Here are rules that SCM Focus follows that prevent the dissemination of false and or biased information on this site:

1. Maintain Freedom From Commercial Influence: One of the major problems with market experts is that they are paid to write things or that they sell their research. This problem is very prevalent in the financial industry. To prevent commercial influences from taking over the site, it’s important that any relationship with software vendors, or other influencing parties be declared. It is also important that the financial benefits from working in a writing capacity for third parties be declared. Think tanks that do work in public policy and economics tend to hide their funding sources, and or present their analysis as if their funding has no relationship to their analysis. Many think tanks such as The Hoover Institute, CATO, Heritage Foundation, all operate in this manner, but their bias is clear when one compares the positions they hold to their funding. These institutions are essentially writing for cash, and are not serious research organizations. Many supposed research institutions work this way, their contribution to knowledge is actually negative. The way around this is to openly declare all financial relationships. We do this on this page (see below). 
2. Maintain No Conflicts of Interest: All companies which are responsible for providing ratings, that are paid, directly or indirectly, by the companies they are offering opinions on, have problems with conflicts of interest. This has shown to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt among financial rating firms such as Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch, as well as the major accounting firms. It is also a problem for any media outlet, which accepts advertising. This is why Consumer Reports, an outlet with a very good reputation for objectivity, does not take advertising. We have been offered advertising and have turned them down because first of all, advertising cheapens any medium and secondly, we don’t want products or services we dislike appearing on the site. We also are never paid to write about or promote any product on this site. 
3. Have No Subscribers: However, bias not only comes from financial ties from the supply side. It also can come from the demands of readers. A good example of this is financial newsletters, which have a poor reputation for accuracy and seem to cater to and attract readers with a certain bias. If writers are overly concerned with keeping their audience, and if there are strong financial incentives to do so, the author with have a strong incentive to write information that their readers “want to hear.” We like to have a healthy reader base, but if some turn away from the site for whatever reason, it does not affect us financially. We do not charge for access to the site. It’s important to be in a position to print what is true.

Declaration Vendor Financial Relationships

The listing below is the complete listing of all entities which SCM focus received any payment of any kind. All income has been from consulting work which usually takes the form of occasionally writing an article for their blog or providing competitive landscape information. The total income from any vendor has never exceeded $2000.

1. We have performed some writing and advisement for PlanetTogether, a best of breed production planning and scheduling vendor.
2. We received some analytical work from JDA on the competitive landscape.

What About Unmentioned Vendors? 

On one comment on a post, the question was asked why other vendors were not mentioned on this list, implying that since we wrote good things about them, that by not including them we were hiding a financial linkage. That is not how the list should be read. Only those vendors that we have received income from are on the list. This is because if a particular vendor is not listed above, then no income was received from them.