Collapsing markets and high-profile scandals have made trust one of the most important issues for the IT decision-maker.

And slimmed-down budgets combined with a much tougher concentration on business priorities have added focus to user demands placed on vendors.

ImageTrak suggests suppliers have impressively met the challenge, but the results were extremely varied.

While the plaudits for the top suppliers here are deserved, it is important to see the company ratings in a wider perspective.

The biggest variations in judgement are between suppliers of hardware and those of software and services.

The hardware suppliers score impressively, with the lowest scores still above a 60 per cent satisfaction rate.

The top performers are clearly keeping the customer satisfied: AMD scores 86 per cent for performance; IBM and Sun 84 per cent for reliability; and Intel 82 per cent for integration.

The best telecoms and networking suppliers also score very highly, with Cisco and 3Com into the 80s and even the 90s for performance and value. However, the most-used supplier BT, is miserably placed at the bottom of almost every category.

In the storage sector, Hitachi Data Systems finished top of every category with a return on investment score of 96 per cent.

The contrast of attitudes to software and services is striking.

The services sector shows a considerable degree of dissatisfaction. Both Accenture and Cap Gemini scored just 27 per cent on value for money. While the likes of IBM Global Services, HP and Compaq performed reasonably well, the overall satisfaction rates were still well below those of the hardware suppliers.

Users are equally circumspect about their software suppliers.

The performance of Red Hat (80 per cent), reliability of IBM (82 per cent) and ease of integration of Microsoft and HP (70 per cent) are highly-related.

But many of the scores are moderate to poor. Siebel finishes bottom of four out of five ratings while Computer Associates and Microsoft both score badly for support and performance.

So why does software and services not get higher ratings?

Services suffers partly from the size of contracts and the expectations that go with big money deals.

Accenture, for example, is rated highly for its understanding of business goals but many customers simply do not feel they are getting value for money in delivery.

There is a clear demand for a company that both understands business priorities AND can deliver best-value IT. But it doesn't seem to be there at the moment.In the software field, the companies' approach to business itself is mixed. The high-volume mass-market suppliers probably won't feel too bad about not being seen as best of breed.

The mediocre and poor scores for perceptions of value for money may yet count for something. SAP and Siebel certainly have to think about building their own customer relationships, while Microsoft may be aware that a low rating (47 per cent) for return on investment reflects dissatisfaction with its new licensing regime.