Overview
A North America investment research team was reviewing enterprise software exposure across a book of roughly $120M. Vendor filings and earnings commentary showed continued category growth. That was not the same as knowing which products CIOs were still funding, which implementations were slipping, or which emerging tools were taking share inside actual IT budgets.
The team already had the historical record. What it lacked was a forward view from people who still signed the purchase. Public disclosures explained last year’s spend. They did not explain next quarter’s priorities, implementation timelines, or the quiet cuts happening underneath a stable software line item.
The desk engaged Primary Insight to get structured access to currently active and recently active technology decision-makers: CIOs, CTOs, procurement leaders, and former software executives with firsthand buying or selling experience across several industries.
Challenge
The core challenge was not a lack of software data. It was a lack of independent, decision-grade perspective on how budgets were being allocated now. Vendor management had every reason to describe demand as durable. Consensus research repeated that story. Internal models could only go so far in testing it.
Key open questions included:
Which software categories were being protected, delayed, or cut in the current budget cycle?
Were implementation timelines slipping even where spend still appeared in filings?
How were CIOs ranking incumbent platforms versus emerging tools?
Was reported “digital transformation” spend landing in infrastructure, applications, or security?
Were procurement leaders changing vendor concentration or payment terms in ways the model had not captured?
A wrong read on those points meant keeping $120M pointed at names still living on last year’s narrative.
Approach
Primary Insight custom-sourced technology buyers and former vendor executives against the brief, then ran qualifying interviews before any client time was used. The standard was current budget authority and a precise view of what was being funded, not a general software overview.
The team held targeted PI Calls with decision-makers across several industries. Conversations were built around live allocation: what had survived planning, what had been pushed, and which vendors were winning the next cycle. When the first set of calls opened a second question around implementation delays versus headline spend, sourcing continued until that gap was closed.
Outcome
The consultations did not produce a single anecdote. They produced a pattern. Reported category growth was still visible. The mix underneath it was not. Some platforms were being defended. Others were being maintained on paper while implementations slipped. Emerging tools were taking share in places the filings had not yet made obvious.
The research team recast $120M of enterprise software exposure toward the categories CIOs were actually funding and away from names still priced as if last year’s budget were a forecast. The expert work became an input the desk could put against the model, not color around the edges of it.
