32_PSO_Vendor_Scorecard.xls

Insert Project Name[Insert Project Name]Vendor Scorecard

&RPage &P&L&"Arial,Regular"[Insert Project Name]Vendor Scorecard&R&"Arial,Bold"Managed by&"Arial,Regular"Program Services Office

AssumptionsVendor Scorecard TemplateProject Name:Software Names:Project Start Date:Project End Date:

&RPage &P&L&"Arial,Regular"[Insert Project Name]Vendor Scorecard&R&"Arial,Bold"Managed by&"Arial,Regular"Program Services OfficePreliminary evaluation assumptions: TBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBD

Evaluation CriteriaSoftware Evaluation CriteriaDescriptionWeight (%)Functional and Technical Assessment FactorsFunctionalityRobustness of vanilla solution in comparison to best of creed solutions; Degree of customization needs that can be met; Availability of workarounds that can be used to meet business needs30%UsabilityEase of use, intuitiveness, number of clicks, user interface appeal, portal15%Technical AlignmentArchitectural openness and extensibility, performance, scalability, reliability, availability, security and compliance20%Vendor BackgroundCompany history, strategic direction, stability, support, risk impact5%Total Cost of OwnershipHardware costs, software license, implementation costs, and on-going support costs30%NOTE: Weighting and criteria TBD based on specific project needs. Confirm these with the Project Sponsors, Project Manager and Steering Committee members.


SummaryEvaluation CriteriaWeightingSoftware 1Software 2Lowest cost solution = 100 (both solutions will receive same score if within 3%)Average ScoreWeighted ScoreAverage ScoreWeighted ScoreNext solution if 3% to 11% var. = 80Functionality30%0000Next solution if 11% to 20% var. = 60Usability15%0000Next solution if 21% to 30% var. = 40Technical Considerations20%0000Next solution if 31% to 40% var. = 20Vendor Viability5%0000Next solution if 41% to 50% var. = 0Total Cost of Ownership30%0000Total Score:0000Other scenarios based on various weightingsScenario 1Evaluation CriteriaWeightingSoftware 1Software 2Average ScoreWeighted ScoreAverage ScoreWeighted ScoreFunctionality30%0000Usability20%0000Technical Considerations20%0000Vendor Viability10%0000Total Cost of Ownership20%0000Total Score:0000Scenario 2Evaluation CriteriaWeightingSoftware 1Software 2Average ScoreWeighted ScoreAverage ScoreWeighted ScoreFunctionality30%0000Usability20%0000Technical Considerations20%0000Vendor Viability15%0000Total Cost of Ownership15%0000Total Score:0000Scenario 3Evaluation CriteriaWeightingSoftware 1Software 2Average ScoreWeighted ScoreAverage ScoreWeighted ScoreFunctionality30%0000Usability15%0000Technical Considerations25%0000Vendor Viability10%0000Total Cost of Ownership20%0000Total Score:0000


1. FunctionalityEvalution Component: FunctionalityFollow-up ActionsBusiness ProcessDescriptionInsert Software Name 1Insert Software Name 2Person 1Person 2Person 3Person 4Person 5TBDPersonPerson 2Person 3Person 4Person 5TBDScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreComments0out of 840out of 600out of 1000out of 960out of 960out of 960out of 880out of 640out of 960out of 960out of 960out of 960.0021 criteria scored0.0015 criteria scored0.000.0024 criteria scored0.0024 criteria scored0.000.0022 criteria scored0.0016 criteria scored0.00024 criteria scored0.0024 criteria scored024 criteria scored642110010010010010084968860

&RPage &P&L&"Arial,Regular"[Insert Project Name]Vendor Scorecard&R&"Arial,Bold"Managed by&"Arial,Regular"Program Services Office4 = Full functionality is available, needs basic configuration (e.g. branding, reports, vendor integration tools)3 = Most functionality is available, may require basic customization2 = Basic functionality is available, but requires some customization, supplemental technology, and/or other workaround1 = Basic functionality is available, but requires highly complex customizations and / or manual workarounds0 = Functionality is not available at this time

2. UsabilityEvaluation Component: UsabilityUsability CriteriaDescriptionInsert Software Name 1Insert Software Name 2Person 1Person 2Person 3Person 4Person 5TBDPerson 1Person 2Person 3Person 4Person 5TBDScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsNavigation / Ease of Use - TBD Functional Area- The system allows me to easily move between pages and scroll through bodies of information- The number of mouseclicks, keyboard strokes or other required actions are reasonable and efficient- The systems' choice of words/phrases helps me quickly find what I'm looking forNavigation / Ease of Use -TBD Functional Area- The system allows me to easily move between pages and scroll through bodies of information- The number of mouseclicks, keyboard strokes or other required actions are reasonable and efficient- The systems' choice of words/phrases helps me quickly find what I'm looking forVisual Appeal- I like the system's visual appeal and overall layout- The layout is organized and logical- Pages are not overly cluttered or busy- The system's font and color scheme makes the displayed information easy to readIntuitiveness- The system is intuitive and I can quickly learn it well enough to accomplish basic tasks- The sytem is intuitive enough for me to find the information / data I need to perform my job- Tools such as on-line help and search are available to help me find what I am looking forPersonalization- The system is flexible and allows me to modify features according to my preferences- I can design the layout of my home page allowing me to quickly access the information that I frequently use0out of 200out of 200out of 200out of 200out of 200out of 200out of 200out of 200out of 200out of 200out of 200out of 200.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

&RPage &P&L&"Arial,Regular"[Insert Project Name]Vendor Scorecard&R&"Arial,Bold"Managed by&"Arial,Regular"Program Services Office4 = Excellent3 = Good2 = Neutral1 = Poor0 = Functionality is not available at this time

3. Technical AlignmentEvaluation Component: Technical AlignmentTechnology CharacteristicsDescriptionInsert Software Name 1Insert Software Name 2Person 1Person 2Person 1Person 2ScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsTechnicalArchitecture - Application, Development, Open, Scalable, Extensible, Performance, Reliability and Availbility, Disaster RecoveryHow well is the application architecture compared to best industry practices and latest technology and trends? Does the vendor use leading practice tools, processes, standards, and environments for internal development? Can the system easily be enhanced with new capabilities without having to make major changes to the system infrastructure? Can the system handle NYU's current and future transaction volume and still run efficiently with minimal interruptions? Can the system scale with NYU's plans for rapid global expansion? Does the system experience frequent "downtimes"? Is the vendor's disaster recovery approach acceptable?Future Technology Roadmap ImpactWould the vendor's technology roadmap have minimal impact on / disruption to NYU?Technical IntegrationHow easily can the system integrate with NYU's existing systems?Workflow Ease of Setup, Configuration, Customization and IntegrationHow easily can NYU customize the system? What is the level of complexity to set up workflow? How easily can workflow integrate between modules and systems? How easily can the workflow be customized? What is the level of complexity of customization?Ease of Customization/ConfigurationHow easily can NYU customize the system? How easily can the system be configured to meet NYU's requirements?Reporting - Application, Ad-hoc, Operational and AnalyticalHow good is the application reporting capabilities and how well it can be integrated with NYU DW?Infrastructure - Installation, Maintenance, Updates, Patches and FixesHow difficult, easy is to install, maintain, apply patches and fixes to the application?Support - Issue Resolution, Technical Support VendorIs the technical support provided by the vendor sufficient for NYU's needs (e.g. 24/7 support, multiple languages); What is the response time can be expected from the technical staff in the event of technical support questions or issues?Application ResponseApplication response from various global sitesNetwork Latency, BandwidthNetwork latency from various global sites and instantaneous bandwidth consumption rate for 5,000 clientsSecuritySecurity - Application, Data Center, Auditing and ComplianceAre there any gaps in the vendor's security model?Security (TSS) - Authentication, Access Control, Encryption, Integrity, Design/Development, Maintenance,For all (TSS) ratings, the following applies:0 = complete failure to meet reqs/did not answer - RED FLAG1 = Significant failure to meet reqs, did fully answer question2 = Partial failure to meet requirements3 = Minimally met requirements 4 = Exceeded requirements/expectations68000000000.00000.00000.00000.00009088

&RPage &P&L&"Arial,Regular"[Insert Project Name]Vendor Scorecard&R&"Arial,Bold"Managed by&"Arial,Regular"Program Services Office4 = No gaps identified 3 = Minor gaps identified2 = Some gaps identified and may pose a risk to the University1 = Gaps identified are of major concern to the University0 = No information available

4. Vendor ViabilityEvaluation Component: Vendor ViabilityVendor Background CriteriaDescriptionInsert Software Name 2Insert Software Name 2Person 1Person 2Person 3Person 4Person 5Person 1Person 2Person 3Person 4Person 5ScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsScoreCommentsCompany backgroundRankings and awards, Reputation, HistoryLeadership VisionWhat is the vendor's strategic direction and does it pose any potential risks / impacts to NYU?Client baseWhat is the size and demographic of the vendor's current client base; how many clients have they lost / gotten recently? How many were upgrades vs. new installs?Stability of product lineWhat is the probability that the product line will sustain for the long term (at least 20 years)Vendor Financial StabilityGlobal SupportWhat is the vendor's ability to capture demographic data for countries where NYU currently operates? What additional countries, outside of where NYU currently operates, are supported by the vendor? What is the vendor's plan for future global capability growth?Implementation PartnersAvailability / access to expert resourcesContinuous ImprovementFrequency of solution improvements; Effectiveness of solution improvementsQuality of Vendor TrainingHow effective is the training provided by the vendor? Are there extensive Support Materials and Resources available to customers?Customer SupportQuality of service, SLAs, Responsiveness of support team3rd Party Vendor ViabilityRisk factor; What is the level of stability of the software's 3rd party vendors?0out of 400out of 440out of 400out of 360out of 440out of 400out of 440out of 400out of 360out of 44440.0010 criteria scored0.000.0010 criteria scored0.009 criteria scored0.000.0010 criteria scored0.000.0010 criteria scored0.009 criteria scored0.00

&RPage &P&L&"Arial,Regular"[Insert Project Name]Vendor Scorecard&R&"Arial,Bold"Managed by&"Arial,Regular"Program Services Office4 = Exceeds industry norms3 = Meets industry norms2 = Partially meets industry norms1 = Does not meet industry norms0 = No information available

1. Functionality Scores OnlyEvalution Component: FunctionalityBusiness ProcessInsert Software Name 1Insert Software Name 2Person 1Person 2Person 3Person 4Person 5TBDSMEPerson 1Person 2Person 3Person 4Person 5TBDSMETBD00000000000000TBD00000000000000TBD00000000000000TBD0000000000000000000000000000444444444444440.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.000001234


2. Usability Scores OnlyEvaluation Component: UsabilityUsability CriteriaInsert Software Name 1Insert Software Name 2Person 1Person 2Person 3Person 4Person 5TBDSMEPerson 1Person 2Person 3Person 4Person 5TBDSMENavigation / Ease of Use - TBD Functional Area000000000000Navigation / Ease of Use - TBD Functional Area000000000000Visual Appeal000000000000Intuitiveness000000000000Personalization00000000000000000000000000555555055555500.000.000.000.000.000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.000001234


3. Technical Scores OnlyEvaluation Component: TechnicalTechnology CharacteristicsInsert Software Name 1Insert Software Name 2Person 1Person 2Person 1Person 2TechnicalArchitecture - Application, Development, Open, Scalable, Extensible, Performance, Reliability and Availbility, Disaster Recovery0000Future Technology Roadmap Impact0000Technical Integration0000Workflow Ease of Setup, Configuration, Customization and Integration0000Ease of Customization/Configuration0000Reporting - Application, Ad-hoc, Operational and Analytical0000Infrastructure - Installation, Maintenance, Updates, Patches and Fixes0000Support - Issue Resolution, Technical Support Vendor0000Network Latency, Bandwidth0000Security0000Security - Application, Data Center, Auditing and Compliance0000Security (TSS) - Authentication, Access Control, Encryption, Integrity, Design/Development, Maintenance,00000000121212120.00000.00000.00000.000001234


4. Vendor Viability Scores OnlyEvaluation Component: Vendor ViabilityVendor Background CriteriaInsert Software Name 1Insert Software Name 2Person 1Person 2Person 3Person 4Person 5SMEPerson 1Person 2Person 3Person 4Person 5SMECompany background0000000000Leadership Vision0000000000Client base0000000000Stability of product line0000000000Vendor Financial Stability0000000000Global Support0000000000Implementation Partners0000000000Continuous Improvement0000000000Quality of Vendor Training0000000000Customer Support00000000003rd Party Vendor Viability000000000000000.00000000011111111110111111111100.000.000.000.000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.000001234


32_PSO_Vendor_Scorecard.xls

Documents