The Member Signal is DoGood’s weekly peer-intelligence briefing for the member network. This issue went to members on August 12, 2026, and appears here lightly edited for the web.
The Signal
Sixty-seven member companies have now told us, in their own words after a vendor meeting, what they intend to buy and roughly when. A hundred and forty-eight of those conversations point at something landing in the next six months. Twenty-two companies are inside three.
Here is what that is worth to you, and it is not the headcount.
The clusters are tight. Identity and credential management, browser and endpoint access, third-party risk, infrastructure dependency mapping, and IT service management account for most of the near-term spend in the network right now. If your own roadmap has one of those on it for this fiscal year, you are not early and you are not late. You are in the middle of a wave, and the people either side of you have just done the work.
That is the part to use. In every one of those clusters there are now between five and thirteen member companies who ran the evaluation inside the last ninety days, sat through the demos, and formed a view. Their opinions are three months old at most, which is the only kind of vendor reference worth having. The network’s value this quarter is not that we can introduce you to a vendor. It is that we can tell you which of your peers already sat in the chair you are about to sit in.
From the Network
“Really compelling solution! Need to debrief with CISO to determine next steps.”
Enterprise Security Program Manager, Finance
“Overall, the service is well thought out and the meeting was informative. I need to see how or if it fits into our IT Service Management Program and what the cost comparisons are.”
Director, Information Security, Healthcare
“Good meeting. Productive. I am researching other companies as a comparison.”
Vice President, Engineering, Software
Read what all three are actually doing. None of them has a problem with the product. Each one is heading off to build an internal case, hunt for a comparison, or price something. That is the work a peer who has already done it can cut in half, and it is the specific thing worth asking for.
Top Open Priorities This Week
Thirteen new initiatives were filed by seven member companies this week, across six industries. Eleven of the thirteen are rated high or critical. Every one carries a date: seven inside three months, the rest inside six. Two of them, verbatim:
“Establish visibility into how employees, applications, and AI agents interact with enterprise data and systems, while detecting risky or malicious activity in real time.”
Chief Information Security Officer, IT Services · critical path, next three months, budget set
“We are looking to gain more insight into non human identities across the enterprise.”
Cybersecurity Director, Construction · high priority, next three months
Eight of the thirteen are about AI, and not one of them is about adopting it. They are about seeing it: which agents are running, what data they touch, whose credentials they use, and whether anyone would notice if that went wrong. The vendor meetings in the section above were mostly about identity, access and infrastructure. What members are declaring next is the layer that watches all three. If you are writing your own FY27 asks right now, that gap is the one your peers have already decided to fund.
Just Opened to the Network
Two vendors opened campaigns to members this month. Both are early enough that almost nobody in the network has met them yet, which cuts both ways: less peer intelligence available to you, and a far more useful conversation for you if you are the one shaping their roadmap.
Reclaim Security works on the gap between finding an exposure and actually fixing it, automating remediation across tooling you already own rather than adding another thing that flags problems. The question they are putting to members: do you have an active or planned initiative in the next six months to cut your backlog of unremediated findings by automating fixes across your existing stack?
Pluto Security is asking members a question most of the network cannot currently answer: if someone asked how many AI tools or agents are actively touching your company’s data, could you give a confident number, or would it be a guess?
Both links open in your portal, so sign in first if you are not already.
Member Spotlight: Stanislav Rosenberg, Mars
This week’s Signal is about the internal work that follows a good vendor meeting. One member put a name to the layer that swallows it. Stanislav Rosenberg is Global Director of Advanced Analytics at Mars, where he owns the analytics lifecycle from pitching the use case through to making sure the business actually uses what gets built, and he put it plainly in his DoGood spotlight, “One area that’s really overlooked is the process change element.” Annual planning cycles, he points out, do not move at the speed dashboards do.
Deep Dive: Cloud & Infrastructure
Thirty-eight member submissions from twenty-six companies across fourteen industries touched cloud or infrastructure in the last ninety days. The pattern is members reopening decisions they had treated as settled, and what forces the reopen is cost, or discovering they cannot describe what they already run.
Where activity is concentrated
- Multi-cloud and hybrid estates. Eight submissions, seven companies, seven industries. Environments inherited through acquisition, instances managed one at a time by separate custodians, cross-cloud tooling being shopped for the first time. Almost nobody calls this a migration. They describe an estate they now have to operate.
- Seeing what you run. Six submissions from six companies. Security posture that drifts between audit cycles across three public clouds. Server dependencies nobody mapped before a migration was scheduled. One member has up-down monitoring across its virtual estate and no view of network traffic at all.
- Onboarding as a control rather than a project. Four submissions from four industries, each describing the same thing: a manual review and risk assessment performed per cloud service, every time, forever. A business services CISO and an energy sector security director independently asked for one repeatable method instead.
What your peers are buying
- Faddom completed ten meetings with ten member companies, the strongest infrastructure pull in the network over the period. Buyers span consumer products, hospitality, hospitals, retail, software, government, manufacturing and insurance. Seven of the ten are buying within six months. The common thread is dependency mapping ahead of a move.
- Centroid completed seven meetings across seven companies, on cost optimization and Oracle work inside existing cloud estates. Five of six who filed feedback are inside six months.
- Datadog completed seven meetings across seven companies. Every member who filed feedback is buying within six months, and it drew the highest average rating of any infrastructure vendor in the window.
What is still open
Hypervisor replacement. Four member companies named a virtualization exit this quarter, driven by licensing cost rather than any missing capability, and no vendor in the network has meaningful traction on replacing a hypervisor. If you are running this evaluation you are running it without peer references, which is worth knowing before you start rather than after.
The second gap is traffic visibility inside on-premises estates. Members can get up-down monitoring and they can get dependency mapping. Nobody in the network is meeting on what is actually moving between those systems.
What it means for your stack
If you are shopping cloud posture, dependency mapping and observability as three separate evaluations, stop and check whether the first tool you buy already answers the second question. Then run all three past the same internal group at once. Three sequential approvals is how a twelve-week decision becomes a twelve-month one.
The Context
Forrester published its State of Business Buying study in January. The typical business buying decision now involves thirteen internal stakeholders and nine external influencers. Procurement sits as a decision-maker in fifty-three percent of cycles. And ninety-four percent of buyers in groups of six or more say the group helps rather than hinders, citing broader perspectives and a better chance of getting budget approved.
The headlines are catching up to what the network already knew. Thirteen people is why the members quoted above are all heading into internal meetings rather than signing. It is also why a peer who has already carried a decision through those thirteen is worth more to you than any amount of vendor material.
Bottom Line: In a thirteen-stakeholder decision the binding constraint is not information about the product, it is evidence that somebody comparable already made the call and did not regret it. That is the one thing a vendor structurally cannot give you and another member can.