There is a common standard process for evaluating software solutions and comparing features and functions with requirements and expectations, which in most cases is provided by the client in order to make different providers and solutions comparable:
Even in the initial first evaluation phase, this process stipulates that the client defines minimum, maximum and must criteria that must be fulfilled by the provider. This document with requirements and criteria is usually known as a “performance specification” in tenders or a “catalog of requirements” in RFI/RFP processes.
We can only point out to you that this approach is not recommended from our point of view and show you alternatives. We would like to briefly explain our general stance on this topic and then outline a path that clients can take in their discussions with potential providers in order to save costs and minimize project durations:
Basic idea:
Every software provider and every digital solution is basically based on a defined standard solution that contains the system architecture, the processing logic, the solution philosophy and the commercial business model for the vast majority (usually 80%) of its own user base and/or priority customer clientele. This standard/core basic architecture usually exists without the perspective of individual solutions, additional modules and/or 3rd party add-on systems.
If a solution with the standard solution architecture and the other perspectives mentioned does not match the potential solution's own idea/philosophy, then these providers are not suitable partners for the project overall and should be excluded from market research, evaluation projects and tenders in advance. This is because the worst-case scenario is always to settle on a resourceful provider with the most favorable mixed calculation, who programs your own requirements outside your own product standard as a “special curl”, so to speak, in order to win the contract.
Most providers deliberately keep their own prices a big secret and only issue project-related offers after an initial orientation phase in which precisely these special wishes and requirements are discussed together. For reasons of time and resources, this process cannot usually be carried out with dozens of providers, which is why a fair and transparent process of market exploration, longlist and shortlist evaluation and tendering is carried out.
However, all providers usually offer free demos, videos and webinars in which the standard architecture, the solution philosophy and the business model are explained. These events usually last around 1 hour. It is easily possible for each client to hold a demo with different providers, as the creation of their own list of requirements consumes many times more time and resources.
If your goal is to implement an optimal solution at the best possible price, then the time invested in the evaluation plays a decisive role. If you are honest with yourself, then a requirements catalog that has been properly coordinated with the participation of the specialist departments, IT department, management and purchasing department will consume at least 50 man-days from dozens of stakeholders (internal resources) for meetings, discussions, drafts and final internal coordination rounds. If you calculate a flat rate of 1 man-year of resources, then an evaluation costs > €100,000 before the first potential provider is contacted.
Alternative solution:
Internet research of suitable providers and solutions (buzzword search -> time required approx. 1-5 hours)
Creation of the longlist of approx. 10-15 providers (time required approx. 1-5 hours)
Visit the demo presentations (time required approx. 10-15 hours)
Creation of the shortlist of 3 providers (time required approx. 1-5 hours)
Evaluation workshops as paid consultations (time required 3x 8 hours each, costs approx. € 5,000)
Vendor selection PoC, project definition, PoC coordination
Pilot project (test period 3-6 months - costs approx. €10,000)
Final selection, contract negotiation, project planning