I'd say it's less 'smart' and more due diligence. I agree that you should know at least SOME alternative options to things. We're seeing more tech Managers/Directors/VPs/whatever that used to be engineers or architects and I think we'll have more people that fairly recently (or still do) had their hands dirty in project work. The new wave of leaders are much more technical than the previous wave of leaders. But the problem still remains that once you've been away from the daily low level work, things move on without you. There will always be some disconnect. I think the new wave of leadership will better know that and hopefully respond a little better by having people propose alternatives to them, personally finding alternatives, etc.
I know that when I don't have the knowledge in a particular area, say payment processing, and I can only think of a vendor or two off the top of my head, it becomes someone's assignment to bring me the pros and cons of the major vendors and maybe a couple of the upstarts- including getting on the phone with them if necessary. The ultimate decision will be a combination of that person's recommendation vs. any business problems that may prevent a relationship (say some certification or SLA forced on us by the client).
There is also the psychology aspect of a well known name. They must be a well known giant because they are good, provide the best, or provide something the others can't- right? Now, WE know that mostly Oracle doesn't do these things. There are a few cases where they have kind of engineered a way to be the only one who does the thing (then got someone to make it a requirement in their project). We know they're generally abusive, and awful to work with. A not very technical decision maker just knows Oracle is a big name. Just like SAP. I'm not saying it's an excuse, it just is.
