Going to begin with an overview of problems and solutions relating to technology selection, starting first with the problem:
According to our research, over 80% of enterprise technology evaluations run over time and budget, and once completed, over 50% of the implementations fail to meet functional and total cost expectations. There are three main reasons that project teams run into trouble.
1. They have no effective way to identify the critical vendor and product questions necessary to successfully initiate the evaluation process.
2. They have no ability to prioritize the different criteria, once identified, relative to one another. As a result, final priorities are often more the result of internal political agendas than true needs and requirements.
3. And finally, project teams have no ability to gather objective, validated, updated data on the vendor alternatives. As you may well know, vendors have a tendency to exaggerate product, service, and corporate capabilities if it enables them to move to the next phase of the deal.
So, what's the solution?
The solution is to create a structured, repeatable process for evaluating technology solutions and the vendors that provide them. Best practices drawn from our clients that have completed internal technology selections suggest that project teams should examine five key categories of criteria. The first two categories examine product specific capabilities, while the remaining three investigate the software vendor's overall corporate capabilities.
So let's review these criteria categories.
Number 1: Product Functionality - Product functionality is the most obvious evaluation criterion and plays a dominant role in supply chain management software selections. Simply put, this evaluates the features and functions delivered by the product as it currently exists. Together with technology and architecture, product functionality often makes up over 90 percent of the overall importance within IT selections, but this is probably too high. Other criteria such as service/support, corporate viability, and strategy should make a stronger contribution.
Number 2: Product Technology - Product technology defines the technical architecture of the product, and the technological environment in which the product can run successfully. Sub criteria include things like application architecture, software usability and administration, and platform and database support. Relative to the other evaluation criteria, best practice selections place a lower relative importance on the product technology criterion. However, this apparently lower importance is deceptive, because the product technology criterion usually houses the majority of an organization's mandatory criteria, which usually include server, client, protocol and database support, application scalability and other architectural capabilities. The definition of mandatory criteria within this set often allows the client to quickly narrow the long list of potential vendors to a short list of applicable solutions that pass muster relative to the most basic mandatory selection criteria.
Number 3: Corporate Service and Support - This criterion defines the capability of the vendor to provide implementation services and ongoing support. Repeated industry surveys have identified this category as the single largest differentiating factor among potential selection options, as well as the greatest indicator of ultimate user implementation success and long term vendor viability. A proper professional services and support evaluation should include both subjective, qualitative measures validated by current product users, and objective, quantitative criteria within both the professional services and product support categories. Service and support includes categories such as consulting, systems integration, project management skills, geographic coverage, language and time coverage of the vendor help desk, and delivery mediums.
Number 4: Corporate Viability - Corporate viability is a critical, yet often overlooked category that examines the financial and management strength of the vendor. Given the huge number of dollars spent on IT procurements, not to mention their strategic importance, the financial stability of the vendor simply can't be stressed too much. The vendor viability category in WebTESS combines quantitative Wall Street ratio and metric analysis with qualitative management and corporate evaluations. Only by combining the two components can IT executives accurately assess the risk and benefit of corporate investment in a specific product and vendor option.
Number 5: Corporate Strategy - Corporate strategy evaluates the corporate road map and strategy of the software vendor with regard to specific timelines of how the product will be developed, sold, and supported within the supply chain management market. This is the most strategic and long term set of evaluation criteria, and rates how effectively the stated vendor's three to five year product, support and sales strategy maps to the overall market direction. Any dissonance between the stated vendor direction and market direction is a cause for concern, and should be rectified by the vendor through either a shift in corporate policy or a detailed and market validated explanation for the discord.
Now that we have given an overview of the requirements of a technology selection, I would like to move on to an overview of the Supply Chain Management Software Marketplace and as it exists today.
According to our research, over 80% of enterprise technology evaluations run over time and budget, and once completed, over 50% of the implementations fail to meet functional and total cost expectations. There are three main reasons that project teams run into trouble.
1. They have no effective way to identify the critical vendor and product questions necessary to successfully initiate the evaluation process.
2. They have no ability to prioritize the different criteria, once identified, relative to one another. As a result, final priorities are often more the result of internal political agendas than true needs and requirements.
3. And finally, project teams have no ability to gather objective, validated, updated data on the vendor alternatives. As you may well know, vendors have a tendency to exaggerate product, service, and corporate capabilities if it enables them to move to the next phase of the deal.
So, what's the solution?
The solution is to create a structured, repeatable process for evaluating technology solutions and the vendors that provide them. Best practices drawn from our clients that have completed internal technology selections suggest that project teams should examine five key categories of criteria. The first two categories examine product specific capabilities, while the remaining three investigate the software vendor's overall corporate capabilities.
So let's review these criteria categories.
Number 1: Product Functionality - Product functionality is the most obvious evaluation criterion and plays a dominant role in supply chain management software selections. Simply put, this evaluates the features and functions delivered by the product as it currently exists. Together with technology and architecture, product functionality often makes up over 90 percent of the overall importance within IT selections, but this is probably too high. Other criteria such as service/support, corporate viability, and strategy should make a stronger contribution.
Number 2: Product Technology - Product technology defines the technical architecture of the product, and the technological environment in which the product can run successfully. Sub criteria include things like application architecture, software usability and administration, and platform and database support. Relative to the other evaluation criteria, best practice selections place a lower relative importance on the product technology criterion. However, this apparently lower importance is deceptive, because the product technology criterion usually houses the majority of an organization's mandatory criteria, which usually include server, client, protocol and database support, application scalability and other architectural capabilities. The definition of mandatory criteria within this set often allows the client to quickly narrow the long list of potential vendors to a short list of applicable solutions that pass muster relative to the most basic mandatory selection criteria.
Number 3: Corporate Service and Support - This criterion defines the capability of the vendor to provide implementation services and ongoing support. Repeated industry surveys have identified this category as the single largest differentiating factor among potential selection options, as well as the greatest indicator of ultimate user implementation success and long term vendor viability. A proper professional services and support evaluation should include both subjective, qualitative measures validated by current product users, and objective, quantitative criteria within both the professional services and product support categories. Service and support includes categories such as consulting, systems integration, project management skills, geographic coverage, language and time coverage of the vendor help desk, and delivery mediums.
Number 4: Corporate Viability - Corporate viability is a critical, yet often overlooked category that examines the financial and management strength of the vendor. Given the huge number of dollars spent on IT procurements, not to mention their strategic importance, the financial stability of the vendor simply can't be stressed too much. The vendor viability category in WebTESS combines quantitative Wall Street ratio and metric analysis with qualitative management and corporate evaluations. Only by combining the two components can IT executives accurately assess the risk and benefit of corporate investment in a specific product and vendor option.
Number 5: Corporate Strategy - Corporate strategy evaluates the corporate road map and strategy of the software vendor with regard to specific timelines of how the product will be developed, sold, and supported within the supply chain management market. This is the most strategic and long term set of evaluation criteria, and rates how effectively the stated vendor's three to five year product, support and sales strategy maps to the overall market direction. Any dissonance between the stated vendor direction and market direction is a cause for concern, and should be rectified by the vendor through either a shift in corporate policy or a detailed and market validated explanation for the discord.
Now that we have given an overview of the requirements of a technology selection, I would like to move on to an overview of the Supply Chain Management Software Marketplace and as it exists today.
No comments:
Post a Comment