Last week, I publicly promised Dr. Radicati that I would post her written response to my questions in its entirety on my web site. Monday a staffer from The Radicati Group called my office to let me know that I could expect a written response to my e-mail on Wednesday. Here then, is yesterday's e-mail exchange from Dr. Radicati:

From: eric.mack@ica.com [mailto:eric.mack@ica.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 9:50 PM
To: sara@radicati.com
Subject: Dr. Radicati, do you plan to respond to Michael Sampson's response to your Messaging Market Analysis?

Dr. Radicati,

My name is Eric Mack; I shall assume that you are aware of me --  if not for work with the EMA many years ago, when I was CTO of Peloria Technology Corp, then at least from my recent comments on my personal blog: www.EricMackOnline.com.

Michael Sampson's response to your Messaging Market Analysis a week and a half ago raised many questions for me and for my clients. Many companies and trade publications refer to your reports and analyses for information on the messaging marketplace. As you can imagine, Michael's response has generated more questions than it answered.

Your recent response to Ed Brill's blog on your web site answered several of the questions that I had about motivation for the publication of the report, thank you. What I was hoping that you might also address, were the specific issues that Michael Sampson raised. So far, I have seen no response to any of Michael Sampson's comments about your analysis -- from you or from anyone else. Michael's objections to your analysis and conclusions were specific and clear. I'd like to know what you think.

Dr. Radicati, will you post a public response to Michael Sampson's response to your paper, or should I assume, that Michael's observations and responses are correct?

If the referrer activity on my web site coming from other blogs and from Google searches seeking "Radicati" is any indication of interest in this topic, I am not the only one with questions. I know that at least my clients and I would like to know what your response is to the Sampson paper.

As I have offered on my public web site, if you would like to respond directly, and I hope that you will, you may reach me at my email (below) or at my office, 661-242-8410 x101. I look forward to hearing from you. I promise to post any written response from you in it's entirety.

Eric Mack.

Eric Mack,
eProductivity Specialist,
Making Technology Work For You

VideoPhone:         661-665-7878  H.320 Codec, 2x64 (ISDN)
Blog:                 http://www.ericmackonline.com
Corp Web Site:         http://www.ica.com
eProductivity         http://www.eProductivity.NET
WeatherCam:         http://weather.ica.com
Homeschool:         http://www.mackacademy.com
Facsimile:                 661-242-0171
Telephone:                 661-242-8410 x101
--- Nothing new below / Fin du message transmis ---

=======================================
From: "Sara Radicati"
Date: 08/04/2004 11:37 AM
To: eric.mack@ica.com
cc:
Fax to:

Subject: RE: Dr.Radicati, do you plan to respond to Michael Sampson's response to your Messaging Market
Analysis?                                                              

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your email - I read Michael Sampson's response to my paper but frankly, I don't see where it raises issues that I still need to respond to beyond those which I have already posted on my web site.

My view/position is:

1. I believe Michael is entitled to his opinion about the market for Notes, Workplace and Microsoft Exchange. My company clearly has a different position as expressed in the whitepaper.

2. Nothing I have read in Michael's response changes my mind about anything we have already written in our paper.

3. I am amazed at the amount of discussion/publicity all of this has genrated given that my company had already openly come out against IBM Lotus's Workplace strategy since the beginning of the year. I have given countless interviews in which I expressed the opionions which are summarized in the whitepaper in question. I have also made my views known to IBM Lotus senior management when we have had briefings and they have asked for our feedback. In a nutshell, I believe IBM Lotus's workplace strategy is weak and will cause than to lose market share over the next four years.

4. I am also amazed that it seems that a portion of Lotus Notes customers/followers don't realize that Workplace Messaging is a replacement strategy for Notes - I guess they must not be understanding the same things as they listened to the IBM Lotus formal presentations.

Finally, I am not interested in blogging or discussing this topic much further since everyone's opionion is fairly well ingrained and polarized at this point. We have stated our opinion as it stands in the whitepaper and we will continue to stand by that position. I do, however, take a great deal of offense when people attack my company's integrity simply because they don't like our point of view. I think that is extremely sad for our industry and very underhanded.

You can make this entire email available to others if you wish but frankly that only encourages what I think is by now a fairly pointless discussion.

Regards,
Sara

Sara Radicati, PhD
President & CEO
The Radicati Group, Inc.
595 Lytton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
USA
Tel: 650-322-8059 x.18
www.radicati.com

=============================================
From: eric.mack@ica.com [mailto:eric.mack@ica.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 11:03 AM
To: Sara Radicati
Subject: RE: Dr. Radicati, do you plan to respond to Michael Sampson's response to your Messaging Market Analysis?

Hello Sara,

Thank you for your email today.

While I do not share the conclusions raised in your report, my real objections have to do with undisclosed interests or even the appearance of such -- either of which can be damaging to you and to the credibility of our common profession, as technologists and consultants.

I won't repeat here what I have already written on my blog, but I do encourage you and your analysts to read and consider some of the procedural objections that have been raised. I would be happy to discuss the concerns that I have raised, either publicly or privately.

Before I leave this issue, may I please encourage you, in any future reports, to address the concerns which I have raised on my web site up front. If a reader understands the objective, the sponsorship, and the method used to reach the conclusions presented in your papers, then they will be in a better position to make use of the information that The Radicati Group has to share.

As I promised, I shall post your email in its entirety as a comment to my blog.  (I feel an obligation to at least bring closure to the question that I posed, of whether or not you would respond to the Shared-Spaces response paper to your report.)

Thank you for taking the time to share your position with me.

Eric Mack

----------------------------------------------------
Eric Mack,
eProductivity Specialist,
Making Technology Work For You

VideoPhone:         661-665-7878  H.320 Codec, 2x64 (ISDN)
Blog:                 http://www.ericmackonline.com
Corp Web Site:         http://www.ica.com
eProductivity         http://www.eProductivity.NET
WeatherCam:         http://weather.ica.com
Homeschool:         http://www.mackacademy.com
Facsimile:                 661-242-0171
Telephone:                 661-242-8410 x101
--- Nothing new below / Fin du message transmis ---

=======================================
From: "Sara Radicati"
Date: 08/04/2004 12:19 PM        
To: eric.mack@ica.com
cc:
Fax to:
Subject: RE: Dr. Radicati, do you plan to respond to Michael Sampson's response to your Messaging Market Analysis?

Eric,

I think you have not understood a single thing I just wrote to you - again, everything I needed to say about this topic or our methodology, ethics, processes, etc. is already posted on my web site.

I really don't have any more time for these endless discussions.

Regards,
Sara

Sara Radicati, PhD
President & CEO
The Radicati Group, Inc.
595 Lytton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
USA
Tel: 650-322-8059 x.18
www.radicati.com

My previous blogs on this topic:

July 23,2004 When does Market Analysis Research" become "Marketing?
July 28,2004 Radicati Market Research Questions
July 30,2004 Dr. Radicati Responds... Well, sort of

Discussion/Comments (6):

Where did the e-mail originate?

A question was asked of me: Do I know the originator of the message that I posted above. The only information that I have comes from the e-mail header. Since I was able to reply and then received a response to that, I must assume that the address and the sender are authentic.

Here is the header of the message that I received yesterday. Perhaps someone, better equipped than I, would like to verify its authenticity.

Received: from mailserver.ica.com ([208.1.40.74])

by ica-corp.ica.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5)

with ESMTP id 2004080411391943-1740 ;

Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:39:19 -0700

Received: from hp3.griffinwerks.com ([209.128.96.162])

by mailserver.ica.com (VisNetic.MailServer.v7.4.7.0) with ESMTP (SSL) id KIN38202

for ; Wed, 04 Aug 2004 11:39:20 -0700

Received: from SaraPC (adsl-64-174-248-146.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [64.174.248.146])

(authenticated (0 bits))

by hp3.griffinwerks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i74LsoK23590

for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 14:54:50 -0700

From: "Sara Radicati"

To:

Subject: RE: Dr. Radicati, do you plan to respond to Michael Sampson's response to your Messaging Market Analysis?

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:37:13 -0700

Message-ID: <000001c47a52$0f955b90$1800a8c0@SaraPC>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Posted at 8/5/2004 2:14:11 PM by Eric Mack


64.174.248.146 is the Internet access router of the Radicati Group. No surprise here.

What I need is one from the other address. :-)

Posted at 8/5/2004 2:41:51 PM by Volker Weber


Oh dear

Way to compound a catalogue of errors eh?

Posted at 8/5/2004 5:03:18 PM by Ben Poole


If everyone's opinions are soooo engrained then why write another report in the first place?

Posted at 8/6/2004 3:49:57 PM by Simon


Radicati accepts my offer to post her response ...

I am amazed at the reluctances of an assumed industry expert to provide credence or adequate rebuttal to an inquisition of a report that they had authored. In review of the comments I do feel that Dr. Radicati should provide the needed support information for the responses that are required to satisfy the remarks. I have written many articles and books that have received a less than popular review. I have always spent time to give the support data that were the basis of my assumptions in the research that I performed. The Radicati Group’s methods and conclusions are very characteristic of a poor scientist.

Posted at 2/10/2008 6:59:41 PM by Timothy Miller PhD


re: Radicati accepts my offer to post her response ...

Timothy, that's why so many were so upset - the evidence did not support the conclusion. That's why I personally contacted Dr. Radicati - I wanted to offer her the opportunity to provide the information that was so obviously missing. In the end, her actions hurt her own reputation.

Posted at 2/10/2008 7:08:23 PM by Eric Mack



Discussion for this entry is now closed.