This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
Best Practice for Digital Service Success: CSPs
Must Verify Suppliers' Implementation,
Deployment and Integration Skills
Published: 27 March 2018
ID: G00351989
Analyst(s): Norbert J. Scholz, Jouni Forsman, Amresh Nandan
CSPs risk project failures with their customer management and billing
systems when suppliers lack adequate services skills. Technology business
unit leaders must obtain contractual supplier commitment for
implementation, deployment and integration skills as CSPs become digital
service providers.
Key Challenges
■
Communications service provider (CSP) technology business unit leaders pay too little attention
to ensuring that their selected integrated revenue and customer management (IRCM) vendors
have the necessary implementation, deployment and integration skills.
■
Availability of local and on-site supplier resources is a challenge for many CSPs and will
continue to be so in near future.
■
Many IRCM vendors have morphed into de facto services outfits with software divisions whose
goal it is to maximize revenue and not necessarily address CSPs' issues.
■
As IRCM vendors are offering their own professional services, many system integrators are illprepared to provide adequate partnerships and expertise on specific products.
Recommendations
To enable CSP digital technology transformation, technology business unit leaders in charge of
purchasing revenue and customer management software and services should:
■
Protect their transformation programs by verifying suppliers' implementation skills and
experience, as well as by enforcing metrics that are specific to deployment, integration and
change management.
■
Obtain commitments (contractually) for the availability of local and on-site staff by identifying
the need for full time staff required for various activities. Negotiate to avoid resource sharing.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
■
Work directly with the supplier to implement and deploy the solution, if possible, rather than
engaging a system integrator.
■
Tender two separate RFPs — one for the product and one for the product's implementation,
deployment and integration.
Table of Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 2
Analysis.................................................................................................................................................. 5
Verify Suppliers' Implementation and Deployment Skills, and Assure the Product's Ease of
Integration........................................................................................................................................ 5
Implementation Criteria Technology Business Unit Leaders Wished They Had Considered......... 7
Integration Criteria Technology Business Unit Leaders Wished They Had Considered................. 7
Contractually Commit to the Availability of Local and On-Site Staff and Resources......................... 12
Work Directly With the Supplier to Implement and Deploy the Solution, Rather Than Engaging a
System Integrator........................................................................................................................... 13
Gartner Recommended Reading.......................................................................................................... 15
List of Tables
Table 1. Implementation and Deployment Best Practices and Worst Practices..................................... 11
List of Figures
Figure 1. Key Factors That Drove CSPs' Decisions for Selecting IRCM Vendors..................................... 4
Figure 2. Satisfaction With IRCM Vendor Implementation, Deployment and Integration Skills.................. 5
Figure 3. Most Commonly Missed Product Feature Evaluation Criteria: Implementation and Integration
.............................................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 4. CSPs' Overall Experience With IRCM Solutions — Positive and Negative.................................9
Figure 5. CSPs' Top Change Requests to IRCM Vendors..................................................................... 13
Figure 6. How CSPs Prefer Their IRCM Software Vendor to Implement and Deploy the Solution...........14
Introduction
Integrated revenue and customer management (IRCM) RFPs are highly detailed and often contain
lists that include hundreds of product features. By focusing on product features, CSP technology
business unit leaders in charge of purchasing revenue and customer management software and
Page 2 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
services often neglect to query suppliers' implementation, deployment and integration skills. As a
result, CSP technology business unit leaders run the risk of project failure — impeding digital
transformation efforts. At times, CSPs disregard the impact of new implementations on less obvious
aspects (such as information and data management, and process re-engineering requirements),
leading to suboptimal outcomes.
A survey of 122 CSP decision makers involved in IRCM vendor selection reveals that skills such as
"strong services expertise," "strong customer focus," "breadth of services," and "strong consulting
partnership" feature less prominently on vendor-selection criteria than product-related criteria (see
1
Figure 1). This survey was conducted in conjunction with our "Magic Quadrant for Integrated
Revenue and Customer Management for CSPs" research and reflects references shared by
vendors.
IRCM Defined
IRCM meets all transaction-charging processing requirements, regardless of product,
service, delivery network, customer type or payment method for a particular CSP. It
includes a set of integrated customer- and network-facing solutions that support
customer acquisition, retention and monetization functions.
Common modules include:
■
■
Core modules — billing and account management, real-time rating or charging,
product catalog, customer/service product life cycle management, balance
management, customer self-care, dynamic discounting, policy management (policy
and charging rules function [PCRF]), multichannel support, analytics and reporting,
and partner relationship management.
Ancillary modules — electronic bill presentment and payment (EBPP), interconnect
billing and mediation.
Page 3 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
Figure 1. Key Factors That Drove CSPs' Decisions for Selecting IRCM Vendors
Base: Results derived from a survey of reference customers provided by IRCM vendors.
Multiple responses allowed.
Number of customer references: 122
IRCM = integrated revenue and customer management
Source: Gartner (March 2018)
Technology business unit leaders face a number of issues when it comes to integration — ease of
deployment, end-user training, and the availability of third-party resources — as shown in Figure 2.
By relegating integration and deployment to second place, putting their trust in suppliers'
integration and deployment skills, technology business unit leaders run the risk of project failure.
Survey evidence suggests there are issues that technology business unit leaders could have
avoided by better qualifying their suppliers' capabilities before launching a project (see Figure 3).
Page 4 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This is the second in a series of four research notes. It will focus on implementation, deployment
and integration. The other research notes cover product selection ("CSPs Must Reduce RFP
Complexity and Limit the Number of Revenue and Customer Management Suppliers"); services and
support; and project management.
Figure 2. Satisfaction With IRCM Vendor Implementation, Deployment and Integration Skills
Question asked: How would your organization rate its satisfaction with the vendor's integration and deployment capabilities for each of
the following items?
Scale: 1 = lowest; 5 = highest
Base: Results derived from a survey of reference customers provided by IRCM vendors.
Number of customer references: 122
IRCM = integrated revenue and customer management
Source: Gartner (March 2018)
Analysis
Verify Suppliers' Implementation and Deployment Skills, and Assure the Product's
Ease of Integration
CSP technology business unit leaders pay too little attention to ensuring that their selected IRCM
vendors have the necessary implementation, deployment and integration skills. Even when they are
mindful of these skills, they are often blindsided by vendors' claims about their number of resources
and past experiences, thereby neglecting to scrutinize such claims as it relates to their particular
project.
Page 5 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
IT business unit leaders should ask IRCM vendors the following questions:
■
How many IRCM implementation projects are you currently involved in, and in
which parts of the world are they?
■
How many concurrent IRCM implementations have you been able to manage?
■
Do you have multiple branches of IRCM source code to support multiple
implementations?
■
■
If so, this could be a case of a red flag that requires deeper probing of the
vendor's approach to product management and customer support.
Where do your resources reside geographically? What are your policies regarding
resource mobility? Are there geopolitical aspects of importance to be considered?
Out of 122 survey respondents, only 16% cited "inadequate system integration and project
management capabilities" as criteria to disqualifying shortlisted vendors. This pales in comparison
to other disqualifiers, such as price (52%), lack of technical and functional ability (43%) and inability
to demonstrate understanding of business needs (30%).
CSP technology business unit leaders should not treat implementation, deployment and integration
as an afterthought when selecting an IRCM vendor. Nor should they take it for granted that vendors
have these skills. As shown in Figure 3, implementation, deployment and integration are among the
top criteria technology business unit leaders wished they had considered when making a vendor
selection, right after product-related concerns.
Page 6 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
Figure 3. Most Commonly Missed Product Feature Evaluation Criteria: Implementation and Integration
Question asked: If you were to make a vendor selection today, please mention any criteria you did not consider previously when you
selected your current vendor for your IRCM solution?
Base: Results derived from a survey of reference customers provided by IRCM vendors.
Number of customer references: 122
IRCM = integrated revenue and customer management
Source: Gartner (March 2018)
The following sections detail the key concerns voiced by references.
Implementation Criteria Technology Business Unit Leaders Wished They Had Considered
■
Stronger partnerships and integration skills in general.
■
Adherence to the latest software development practices, including agile development; agile
support; agile integration; agile changes, and test-first development.
■
Convergent service and products.
■
System integrator thinking, which means an outcome-oriented solution mindset, agnostic to
product and inclusive of all processes and systems that are influenced — or has any influence
— on the implementation.
Integration Criteria Technology Business Unit Leaders Wished They Had Considered
■
Better integration of OEM solutions
Page 7 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
■
Better integration with third-party service providers
■
Methods to integrate the legacy CSP infrastructure into new over-the-top (OTT) systems
■
Integration via web services
■
Integration support with big data technologies, such as Apache Hadoop, Spark or Elasticsearch
■
Integrated big data and reporting system with online reporting and graph capabilities
Implementation, deployment and integration are contentious (as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5). If
done well, these skills are instrumental to a project's success and therefore rank high on user
satisfaction lists. If not, they can be responsible for a project's failure and rank at the bottom of
satisfaction lists.
This means that technology business unit leaders must not take it for granted that vendors will
always provide adequate implementation and integration services. Technology business unit leaders
should carefully examine their suppliers' skills before making a commitment to launch a project.
Page 8 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
Figure 4. CSPs' Overall Experience With IRCM Solutions — Positive and Negative
Question asked: Please provide comments on your overall experience.
Base: Results derived from a survey of reference customers provided by IRCM vendors.
Number of customer references: 122
IRCM = integrated revenue and customer management
Source: Gartner (March 2018)
Page 9 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
References reported a wide assortment of praise as well as faults with their suppliers'
implementation, deployment, and integration skills — as shown in Table 1. The diversity of positive
and negative feedback extends to skills related to vendors' own products as well as their skills with
third-party products. Implementation, deployment and integration capabilities can vary across
different teams provided by the same vendor. CSP technology business unit leaders should always
request proof and contractually agree that the vendor provides teams with the appropriate skill sets.
Page 10 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
Table 1. Implementation and Deployment Best Practices and Worst Practices
Implementation
and Deployment
Integration
Best Practice
Worst Practice
■
Vendor had the same, or better, agility
and innovative mindset as the CSP.
■
The transition from delivery to service
and operations was difficult.
■
Vendor and CSP teams worked well
together in a climate of trust and
competence — despite project
challenges.
■
It took too long for the solution to
mature and stabilize after go-live.
■
It took too long to customize
operational business processes and
was difficult to adapt them to the
CSP's needs.
■
Vendor understood all business
processes and procedures.
■
Vendor fully respected the budget and
the agreed upon project planning.
■
There were quality issues with thirdparty solutions.
■
Vendor implementation team was well
balanced between solution architects,
developers and implementers.
■
■
Vendor dedicated sufficient time for
precise scope of work and explained it
step by step.
The vendor failed to provide
adequate product specialists and
instead acted as a "body-shopper,"
providing resource with minimal
training.
■
Vendor ensured all the necessary
resources were proactively engaged with
the CSP team and implemented in a
manner that also educated the team on
the product.
■
Vendor immediately communicated
project issues and proposed a solution.
■
Vendor was the only CMMI Level 5
certified vendor in the industry.
■
The number of reported incidents was
very small.
■
The ease of product configuration,
custom application integration points,
and a robust suite of available APIs,
allowed the deployment of new products
and services with fast time-to-market.
■
The number of modules is large, but
not all of these products are fully
integrated with one another.
■
There were issues with on-time
delivery of custom components in
conjunction with other third-party
integrators.
■
Integration with key third-party
vendor solution is not out of the box.
■
Lack of integration with other
applications through standard APIs.
■
The system is also open to interface with
other third-party systems if necessary,
minimizing the need for customization.
■
Data migration was seamless, including
the consolidation and migration of
diverse data systems and sources.
Page 11 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
Best Practice
Worst Practice
■
The preintegration of modules improved
ROI, accelerated time-to-market and
reduced risk.
■
■
Vendor provided additional staff on-site
at no cost to facilitate integration.
The solution remains patchy and is
not fully integrated and operational
nearly a year after the CSP approved
the purchase.
■
The vendor lacked system integration
capabilities, which resulted in
projects being delayed.
■
The system integration offering,
including integration adapters and
methods, is rudimentary especially
when compared to the sophistication
of the underlying functional modules
offered.
■
It was difficult to find a single system
integrator that mastered the entire
project architecture because of the
breadth of the solution's functions.
Some partners have good skills in
one product, others in another
product only.
Base: Results derived from a survey of reference customers provided by IRCM vendors.
Number of customer references: 122
API = application programming interface; CMMI = Capability Maturity Model Integration; CSP = communications service provider;
IRCM = integrated revenue and customer management; ROI = return on investment
Source: Gartner (March 2018)
Contractually Commit to the Availability of Local and On-Site Staff and Resources
Better availability of local and on-site resources is the biggest request that CSP technology
business unit leaders have of their IRCM supplier, right after communications (which will be
discussed in the forthcoming governance research), as shown in Figure 5. Considering that most
vendors have a global footprint, such a complaint might be surprising. However, it also reflects the
fact that many vendors remain steeped in a software publishing mode, and treat implementation
and deployment as an afterthought. This is not to say that unavailability of local and on-site staff
and resources is endemic, but it does exist and CSPs are recommended to avoid it before it can
jeopardize their projects.
CSP technology business unit leaders must balance their preference for skilled on-site
presence and cost-efficient offshore delivery. One user summarized it appropriately,
stating how his team expected "more offshore delivery. The European delivery team is
very experienced but priced accordingly."
Page 12 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
Figure 5. CSPs' Top Change Requests to IRCM Vendors
Question asked: What one thing do you wish the vendor did differently?
Base: Results derived from a survey of reference customers provided by IRCM vendors.
Number of customer references: 122
IRCM = integrated revenue and customer management
Source: Gartner (March 2018)
References wished their supplier had done a better job providing on-site resources along the
following lines:
■
Generally, more in-person meetings
■
Provide a team of skilled resources on-site to work across the system integrator and the CSP
■
Better manage the implementation team's visas for entry into their country
■
Vendor should have more experts located in Europe in order to avoid visa-related difficulties
■
To have a larger local and on-site workforce that can understand the customer's needs
■
Having their project manager on-site for the implementation
Work Directly With the Supplier to Implement and Deploy the Solution, Rather Than
Engaging a System Integrator
Many large IRCM vendors have morphed into de facto system services outfits that also run a
software division, as we pointed out in "CSPs: Use These Four Insights When Buying Billing and
Customer Management Solutions." This trend continued during the past year as shown in Figure 6.
Page 13 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
CSP technology business unit leaders should use own IT staff to supplement vendors' skills rather
than engaging a system integrator (SI), unless they have strong evidence that the SI is fully
competent on the product and works well with the vendor's staff.
Ideally, technology business unit leaders should tender two separate RFPs for their project — one
for the product and one for the product's implementation, deployment and integration. IRCM
vendors would have the option to bid on the services element of the RFP alongside third-party SIs.
Tendering two separate RFPs ensures that the IRCM vendor proves they have the necessary skills
and provides their most qualified specialist for the projects. A separate RFP for implementation and
deployment services can be a tool to avoid the "worst practices" cited in Table 1.
Figure 6. How CSPs Prefer Their IRCM Software Vendor to Implement and Deploy the Solution
Question asked: Did your organization work directly with the vendor to deploy the IRCM solution or with any system integrators/external
service providers?
Base: Results derived from a survey of reference customers provided by IRCM vendors.
Number of customer references: 122 (2017); 102 (2016); 90 (2015); 79 (2014).
IRCM = integrated revenue and customer management
Source: Gartner (March 2018)
Page 14 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
Acronym Key and Glossary Terms
API
application programming interface
CMMI
Capability Maturity Model Integration
CSP
communications service provider
EBPP
electronic bill presentment and payment
EMEA
Europe, the Middle East and Africa
IoT
Internet of Things
IRCM
integrated revenue and customer management
MENA
Middle East and North Africa
N/A
not applicable
NFV
network function virtualization
OEM
original equipment manufacturer
OTT
over-the-top
PCRF
policy and charging rules function
RFP
request for proposal
ROI
return on investment
SI
system integrator
VP
vice president
Gartner Recommended Reading
Some documents may not be available as part of your current Gartner subscription.
"Best Practices in Effectively Managing Integrated Revenue and Customer Management Projects for
CSPs"
"CSP Revenue and Customer Management Suites Require a Change in Procurement Approach"
"CSPs Continue to Grapple With Their Choice of IRCM Products and Vendors"
Page 15 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
"CSPs Must Reduce RFP Complexity and Limit the Number of Revenue and Customer
Management Suppliers"
"CSPs Want Software Vendors to Lead Customer Care and Billing Projects, but Continue to
Multisource Software"
"CSPs: Use These Four Insights When Buying Billing and Customer Management Solutions"
"How Billing and Customer Management Software Vendors Can Boost Client Satisfaction and
Retention"
"Hype Cycle for the Future of CSP Network Operations, 2017"
"Magic Quadrant for Integrated Revenue and Customer Management for CSPs"
"Magic Quadrant for IT Services for Communications Service Providers, Worldwide"
"Market Trends: Revealing the Top 5 Industries Where Telecom Revenue Assurance Can Mitigate
the Effects of Digital Disruption"
"Maximizing Value From Billing and Customer Management Solutions"
Evidence
The "Magic Quadrant for Integrated Revenue and Customer Management for CSPs" reference
check is part of the data gathering effort to help Gartner build on the existing knowledge of vendors
in this market. A total of 122 references from 22 suppliers (two vendors merged during the
evaluation process) completed the survey in August 2017.
Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10 depict the geographic location of where the customer references
are based, the number of subscribers on IRCM solutions and the variety of job roles of customer
references participating in our survey.
Vendor reference data is different from primary research and is not a representative knowledge base
of the IRCM market. The references who completed the surveys do not represent customers in the
overall market, but rather, just the selected customers the vendors chose to share with Gartner and
that ultimately elected to participate as a reference check.
Page 16 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
Figure 7. Customer References' Geographic Location
Base: Results derived from a survey of reference customers provided by IRCM vendors.
Number of customer references: 122
Source: Gartner (March 2018)
Page 17 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
Figure 8. Number of Subscribers on IRCM Solution
Base: Results derived from a survey of reference customers provided by IRCM vendors.
Number of customer references: 122
IRCM = integrated revenue and customer management; N/A = not applicable
Source: Gartner (March 2018)
Page 18 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
Figure 9. Customer References' Job Roles
Base: Results derived from a survey of reference customers provided by IRCM vendors.
Number of customer references: 122
Customer references' job titles have been aggregated into job roles.
N/A = not applicable; VP = vice president
Source: Gartner (March 2018)
1 Data is based on four surveys:
1.
A survey of 122 customer references that used solutions provided by 22 vendors (two vendors
merged during the evaluation process) scored in "Magic Quadrant for Integrated Revenue and
Customer Management for CSPs" (2017).
■
2.
The survey was conducted in July 2017.
■
The "Magic Quadrant for Integrated Revenue and Customer Management for CSPs"
reference check is part of the data gathering effort that helps Gartner build on its
existing knowledge of more than 100 vendors in this market.
■
At the outset of the "Magic Quadrant for Integrated Revenue and Customer
Management for CSPs" process, all invited vendors are asked to submit a minimum of
five references that generally represented the inclusion criteria. The vendor provided
reference contact information that was used to invite the reference to complete a 30minute online survey.
A survey of 102 customer references that used solutions provided by 20 vendors scored in
"Magic Quadrant for Integrated Revenue and Customer Management for CSPs" (2016).
Page 19 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
■
The survey was conducted in July 2016.
■
3.
A survey of 90 customer references that used solutions provided by 19 vendors scored in
"Magic Quadrant for Integrated Revenue and Customer Management for CSPs" (2015).
■
The survey was conducted in July 2015.
■
4.
Customer references came from multiple geographies and included a variety of
company sizes (based on subscriber numbers) and customer reference roles, as shown
in Figures 8, 9 and 10 in "CSPs: Use These Four Insights When Buying Billing and
Customer Management Solutions."
Customer references came from multiple geographies and included a variety of
company sizes (based on subscriber numbers) and customer reference roles, as shown
in Figures 6, 7 and 8 in "CSP Revenue and Customer Management Suites Require a
Change in Procurement Approach."
A survey of 79 customer references that used solutions provided by 17 vendors scored in
"Magic Quadrant for Integrated Revenue and Customer Management for CSPs" (2014).
■
The survey was conducted in July 2014.
■
Customer references came from multiple geographies and included a variety of
company sizes and customer reference roles, as shown in Figures 6, 7 and 8 in "CSPs
Continue to Grapple With Their Choice of IRCM Products and Vendors." (Two vendors
did not provide any references.)
This document is published in the following Market Insights:
Carrier Network Infrastructure Worldwide
Carrier Operations & Strategies Worldwide
Enterprise Network Infrastructure Worldwide
Enterprise Network Services Worldwide
Page 20 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.
GARTNER HEADQUARTERS
Corporate Headquarters
56 Top Gallant Road
Stamford, CT 06902-7700
USA
+1 203 964 0096
Regional Headquarters
AUSTRALIA
BRAZIL
JAPAN
UNITED KINGDOM
For a complete list of worldwide locations,
visit http://www.gartner.com/technology/about.jsp
© 2018 Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Gartner is a registered trademark of Gartner, Inc. or its affiliates. This
publication may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without Gartner’s prior written permission. If you are authorized to access
this publication, your use of it is subject to the Gartner Usage Policy posted on gartner.com. The information contained in this publication
has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. Gartner disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of
such information and shall have no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in such information. This publication consists of the
opinions of Gartner’s research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. The opinions expressed herein are subject
to change without notice. Although Gartner research may include a discussion of related legal issues, Gartner does not provide legal
advice or services and its research should not be construed or used as such. Gartner is a public company, and its shareholders may
include firms and funds that have financial interests in entities covered in Gartner research. Gartner’s Board of Directors may include
senior managers of these firms or funds. Gartner research is produced independently by its research organization without input or
influence from these firms, funds or their managers. For further information on the independence and integrity of Gartner research, see
“Guiding Principles on Independence and Objectivity.”
Page 21 of 21
Gartner, Inc. | G00351989
This research note is restricted to the personal use of robson.ribas@zenvia.com.