The Top-Right Corner Is Not a Technology Strategy
Why the Apparently Safest Technology Choice May Create Greater Long-Term Risk
Nobody is usually criticised for choosing a recognised technology market leader. There is an analyst report to support the decision, plenty of existing customers and reassuringly large turnover. If something goes wrong, at least you made the safe choice.
Except that it may not have been the safe choice at all. It may simply have been the easiest one to defend.
I spent five years working at the Metropolitan Police, where I saw public-sector procurement teams deliver some genuinely exciting projects, often under considerable constraints. I also saw how a well-intentioned focus on process can sometimes crowd out the harder question: are we getting the right outcome?
A compliant procurement is not a successful procurement if it produces the wrong result.
The Map Is Already Ageing
Magic Quadrants, Waves and other analyst reports are useful, and I read them. On a Magic Quadrant, the coveted top-right corner is where the market ‘Leaders’ sit. But these reports are a snapshot of where a market has been, not necessarily where it is going.
Gartner says its Magic Quadrants are normally updated annually, that events after the stated research date are not included and, most importantly, that they should be a starting point rather than the only tool used to select a supplier [1].
Now add the public sector timetable. In my experience, a major procurement may take six to nine months, and implementation another six to 24 months. By the time the technology is working, the evidence used to select it may describe a market from several years earlier.
The important question is not where a supplier sits when the tender is published. It is where the supplier, and its technology, will be when you finally go live.
Yet some procurements still use pass/fail criteria based heavily on current turnover, existing public-sector customers and whether a supplier already has a UK support number. These things matter, but they tell you little about trajectory.
This is not an invitation to ignore financial risk. Cabinet Office guidance says that conditions of participation should be proportionate and normally limited to what is essential to deliver the contract [2]. Its financial-standing guidance also allows buyers to consider financial projections, cash-flow forecasts, order pipelines and capital availability rather than relying solely on backward-looking turnover and accounts [3].
A technology roadmap should not simply take today’s market leaders and arrange them into a five-year plan.
Look Forwards as Well as Backwards
When I assess a younger technology company, I want to know why it exists. What problem did its founders encounter that made them believe the established products were not good enough? Do its leadership and board have the credibility to solve it? Is there a clear advantage, or is it merely another product with better branding?
I also look at:
For AI products, what data was used to train and test the technology
Where relevant, patents or other evidence of genuine invention
Recent senior appointments
Funding, investors and financial runway
Published security and data standards
Major product releases over the previous 24 months
Whether its roadmap adds something customers genuinely need
Acquisition activity across the market.
The same tests should be applied to established suppliers. A market leader remains a good choice when it is still earning that position, as they will be investing, releasing useful improvements and listening to customers. Size becomes a risk when a company starts protecting revenue rather than improving its product.
This does not mean ‘always buy from the start-up’. A smaller company with unconvincing leadership, insufficient funding, poor security practices or no clear reason for challenging the incumbent should be rejected. The argument is much simpler: do not design the procurement to eliminate every credible challenger before you have seen its technology.
Test the Technology – Not the Bid-Writing Team
Too many technology procurements are decided largely through written responses. This risks identifying the supplier with the best bid team rather than the best product.
Hands-on testing should be planned and contracted from the outset. Run controlled bake-offs between a small number of shortlisted products. Arrange useful reference calls that explore implementation problems and lessons learned – not calls designed to elicit another customer’s pre-agreed compliment.
I once took part in a bake-off involving ServiceNow and Moveworks. Moveworks performed better against the particular use case we tested. I said at the time that ServiceNow should buy it. In December 2025, ServiceNow completed its acquisition of Moveworks, bringing in technology used by 5.5 million employees.
Acquisition is not always a bad outcome for an early customer, as it can provide greater scale and investment. The customer may also have secured better pricing, more flexible terms and greater influence over the product roadmap by getting there early.
However, the risks still need managing. Contracts should address change of ownership and exit. Supplier managers should monitor funding, ownership, appointments and product direction throughout the contract. Large suppliers can change direction too, so size does not remove the need for an exit plan.
A Notice Is Not Market Engagement
Publishing a procurement notice makes an opportunity technically open. It does not mean the best suppliers know that it exists.
Large incumbents employ public sector sales teams to monitor new opportunities. Smaller technology companies may not. Tendering is expensive, so they will not commit their best people if the procurement looks like an elaborate route to reappointing the incumbent.
Do the research. Speak to credible suppliers through proper preliminary market engagement. Arrange discovery demonstrations before freezing the requirements. Make it clear that there is a genuine opportunity.
The government’s own Procurement Act guidance actively encourages authorities to speak to the market. It says engagement can help identify suppliers, shape requirements and create opportunities for testing and demonstrations [4].
There is a slightly Matrix-like problem here. Some procurement rules cannot be broken. Others turn out not to be rules at all, but an organisation’s interpretation, embedded in a written process years ago.
Put Technology into the Room
Non-technical board members can be reluctant to ask what they fear may be a silly question. Procurement and technology teams therefore need to give decision-makers enough context to challenge the recommendation, not simply present it for approval.
In a study of 100 banks and 1,000 board members, banks with at least one technology-experienced board member recorded average revenue growth of 3.7% between 2015 and 2024, compared with 2% for banks without one. The study rightly stops short of claiming causation, but the difference is difficult to ignore [5].
I would give every board member one simple question: What first-hand research have we done? By this I do not mean commissioned, read or been told; I mean done. Other questions to ask include:
Have people from the business, technology and procurement spoken to the market together?
Have they listened to staff working on the ground?
Have they seen the products, tested them and spoken candidly to customers?
Go for the ‘and’
Good technology should help a business become at least two of three things: cheaper, faster and better. In one small automation trial, the aim was simply to cut contact-centre costs. Removing the need for agents to re-enter information also reduced the time that customers spent on hold, leaving agents more time to assist them. This creates lower costs and better customer outcomes.
Public bodies should not favour start-ups. They should design procurements that give credible challengers a genuine opportunity to win. That, in turn, may release money for frontline services and deliver better outcomes.
At Deecon, we help organisations challenge assumptions, test technology in the real world and focus on outcomes rather than supplier reputations. Whether designing procurements, assessing emerging technologies or assuring major programmes, our goal is simple: to help clients make evidence-based decisions that deliver better services, better value and greater long-term resilience.
References
Written by Shona Claremont
Edited by Kate Randall